radiofree.asia

Category: UK

  • Spineless Ofcom just let GB News off the hook over Tory MPs moonlighting as journalists

    Ofcom has found that a GB News show presented by two Tory MPs breached its impartiality rules. However, the regulator only scalded the far-right media outlet over it not airing differing views. Ofcom failed to rule against the fact that two sitting Conservative MPs were posing as journalists interviewing a sitting Conservative minister.

    Ofcom rules GB News has been very naughty

    As Ofcom tweeted:

    The regulator’s investigation concerned the GB News show Saturday Morning with Esther and Phil. It’s presented by Tory MPs Esther McVey and Philip Davies. On 11 March, they interviewed chancellor Jeremy Hunt. The discussion was around the Spring Budget and economic and fiscal policies.

    Ofcom noted:

    that in discussing these matters, the programme was overwhelmingly reflective of the viewpoints of different strands of opinion within the Conservative Party.

    There were only very limited references to wider perspectives on UK economic and fiscal policy in the context of the forthcoming budget…

    In addition, there were no clear, editorial linkages made in this programme to any other content which might have contained these views.

    That is: Tories were interviewing a Tory, and offering no alternative views.

    Ofcom said this breached its code around:

    due weight to an appropriately wide range of significant views on a matter of major political controversy and current public policy within this programme, in breach of Rules 5.11 and 5.12.

    ‘Flagrantly breaching impartiality rules’

    People on X (formerly known as Twitter) had mixed reactions. One person pointed out that Ofcom has been rather busy dealing with GB News:

    Someone else thought Ofcom had been too slow to act:

    Meanwhile, Des Freedman of the Media Reform Coalition pointed out that part of GB News‘s problem wasn’t just isolated to it:

    That said, many people on X welcomed Ofcom’s decision:

    However, there is a problem with Ofcom’s decision. Some people thought it was over the fact that two Tory MPs were interviewing another Tory MP. Dr Matt Walsh of the government-backed media regulator IMPRESS clearly didn’t read the Ofcom ruling properly before posting on X:

    He’s wrong – because Ofcom specifically didn’t rule against GB News over the Tory MP presenter issue. It noted:

    The content presented on this day by Ms McVey and Mr Davies constituted current affairs. We therefore considered that Rule 5.3 of the Code, which relates to politicians presenting news programmes, was not engaged in this particular case.

    So, on a technicality over what constitutes “news” and what constitutes “current affairs”, GB News got away with it. Ofcom did say that it’s got an “expert research agency” doing “qualitative research” on the MPs posing as journalists issue. In other words, someone’s probably running an opinion poll somewhere.

    Ofcom: as mighty as a drain fly

    The problem here isn’t the fact GB News is a screeching, far-right foghorn amplifier. Every media outlet in the UK has some sort of political bias. This includes broadcast media, even though this is subject to statutory regulation, where print/digital media isn’t. C4 News, for example, is quite openly centre left in its editorial stance.

    At the Canary we’ve never claimed to be impartial. We’re varying shades of left wing – and openly shout about it. The Sun and Daily Mail are openly racist, homophobic, right-wing shitrags. However, they and we are private entities, and that’s our right in the UK. The one exception to all this is the BBC, as it’s publicly funded – even if, as the Canary has consistently documented, it repeatedly fails to act impartially of the state.

    However, while GB News can present its programming with whatever ideological stand point it wishes, it should not be allowing sitting politicians to do it. It is effectively giving MPs a platform to campaign on, without any of the restrictions of campaigning. GB News is letting the Tories dress party political broadcasting up as journalism – when it is nothing more than thinly-veiled propaganda for their party.

    This is the part that’s unacceptable. The UK’s democracy is already a shambolic farce, which has become increasingly worse in recent years. Allowing sitting MPs to present news programmes is the thin end of the wedge. Ofcom, with all the might of a drain fly, is failing to act quickly enough to stop this practice before even more damage is done.

    Feature image via GB News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The World Transformed announces XR are supporting its festival ā€“ just as the protest group repaints Labour HQ with fake oil

    The World Transformed (TWT) has released what it calls a “combative” programme for this year’s left-wing political festival of ideas. It will coincide with the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, which TWT is looking to counter with a line up of events and speakers it is calling “the real opposition”. With groups like Extinction Rebellion (XR) attending, it will be awkward for Keir Starmer – not least because XR activists have literally just repainted his party HQ with fake oil.

    TWT: the real opposition?

    TWT is running from 7 to 10 October. As it has before, the yearly programme of culture and politics will again run alongside the Labour conference. However, it has come to contrast starkly with the partyā€™s now right-wing policy platform.

    Moreover, conference season could be a tricky time for Starmer ā€“ because the Labour leader has U-turned on almost all of his ā€˜ten pledgesā€™. These formed the basis of his leadership campaign to succeed Jeremy Corbyn. For example, during his leadership campaign Starmer pledged to “support the abolition of tuition fees” for university students. Then, just before May 2023’s local elections, he scrapped this.

    More recently, Labour has even reneged on pledges just weeks after it made them. As the National reported on Sunday 17 September, the party:

    have been slated for dumping yet another key pledge to ban all zero-hour contracts.

    According to a policy blueprint seen by the BBC, there is a ban proposed only for ā€œexploitativeā€ zero-hour contracts. If workers welcome flexibility themselves, this would not be prevented.

    Only last week deputy leader Angela Rayner gave a ā€œcast iron guaranteeā€ that Labour would bring in a new bill to ban the contracts within 100 days of government if they win the General Election.

    There are also reports that according to the partyā€™s full policy programme ā€“ produced following a tense meeting of the National Policy Forum in July ā€“ that Labour is no longer committed to raising sick pay rates or extending it to the self-employed.

    As TWT tweeted:

    With all this in mind, there will probably be some on the left of the party at the conference wondering why they’re bothering. However, TWT will offer an alternative.

    Tackling the big issues

    The festival will be hosting more than 100 sessions over four days, taking on what TWT calls “the big political issues of the moment” – from refugees to climate change. It said in a press release that there will be:

    sessions with titles such as ā€˜The Coming Climate Insurrectionā€™, ‘Lessons from the General Strikes in Franceā€™ and ā€˜Left Strategy Under a Labour Governmentā€™. The festival will also platform Jeremy Corbyn, Jamie Driscoll and Neal Lawson, all of whom are considered persona non grata by senior Labour figures.

    Attendees will be trained in industrial action and climate activism – as well as the manufacturing and distribution of left wing propaganda – and listen to talks on police abolition, sex work, trans rights and ā€˜ victories of the Latin American leftā€™.

    TWT is characterising its attendees as ā€˜the real oppositionā€™, and its ā€˜no one is coming to save usā€™ slogan reflects leftā€™s belief that Starmer offers no hope for working people.

    Demanding better

    As the Canary previously reported, Corbyn and Driscoll’s appearances at TWT are likely to ruffle feathers within the Labour right – and that’s without counting the party’s sitting MPs who are attending. TWT said:

    Join trade unionists, organisers, academics and artists from across Britain and beyond as we collectively imagine, demand and build a world transformed. Featuring Ash Sarkar, Mick Lynch, Graham Smith, Jamie Driscoll, Li Andersson, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana and so many more!

    Moreover, groups like Extinction Rebellion (XR) are supporting the festival – making it even more feather-ruffling for the centrists and right wing in Labour. This is because, on Monday 18 September, XR targeted Labour HQ demanding it “cut the ties to fossil fuels”. Activists poured fake oil outside the building, set off smoke bombs, and then climbed it. XR are calling on Labour to do more in its manifesto than its current pledge to:

    stop issuing new oil licenses and cancel any licenses granted by the Conservatives before the election.

    XR protest outside Labour HQ

    XR protest outside Labour HQ

    With little hope that Labour’s conference will offer anything remotely radical, TWT said in a press release:

    TWT is a home for thousands like you – the REAL opposition to the status quo – to discuss, debate, learn and strategise. And to have a good time whilst doing it!

    We canā€™t and wonā€™t wait around hoping to be saved from the crisis of capitalism. We have to take the future into our hands; through our own education and organising.

    Thatā€™s exactly what weā€™ll be doing at TWT23 – and we want you to be a part of it. We have a tiered ticket system so that you can choose an option you can afford, and we even have some cheap community hall accommodation options too.

    You can browse TWT’s full programme of events here. To reserve your tickets, click here.

    Featured image and additional images via XR/Luke Flegg

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the US writers and actorsā€™ strike continues, three quarters of UK film and TV workers are out of a job

    In mid-July, American actors joined the Writers Guild of America (WGA) on the picket line in the first industry-wide walkout for 63 years. This effectively brought the US film and TV business to a standstill. However, the Screen Actors Guild’s (SAG-AFTRA) industrial action is also having a massive knock-on effect on British industry workers.

    In the US, there’s no end to the joint strike in sight. Hollywood’s major studios and streamers have made no contract overtures to the striking actors since they walked off the job in July. That’s according to the performers’ chief negotiator, Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, who negotiates on behalf of the 160,000 actors who belong to SAG-AFTRA.

    Meanwhile, back in the UK, Bectu (the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union) has surveyed almost 4000 freelance film and TV workers. This included ‘behind-the-scenes’ crew such as stylists, background artists, and camera operators. The results of the research outline the stark effects the US strike action has had on their livelihoods.

    Film and TV workers in jeopardy

    All told, three quarters of the freelancers surveyed were out of work at the time. This is highly significant in an industry that relies heavily on temporary contracts and intermittent workers, who will often work on a single production at a time. This is then followed by indefinite periods with no money coming in before the next job starts up.

    Worries about financial security affected 9 in 10 of the survey respondents. 8 in 10 said the US strikes had a direct impact on their employment. 6 in 10 also reported that their work issues were impacting their mental health.

    One respondent lamented:

    I lost my job while pregnant and I donā€™t qualify for maternity pay either. The loss of my job has put great stress and anxiety on my first pregnancy. I am so disheartened by the industry and how disposable we are to productions. We have not heard anything from the production since our last day of work in July.

    Among other results, the Bectu survey also found that:

    • 35% of respondents are struggling with household bills.
    • Almost 25% couldn’t see themselves remaining in the industry for five years.
    • 15% had taken on debt in order to pay bills.
    • 10% were forced to consider moving back in with family.

    ‘Falling through the cracks’

    To make matters worse, many of the freelancers the UK film and TV industry relies on were only just starting to recover from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Like other PAYE freelancers or newly self-employed workers, many of them were not eligible for furlough payments.

    Similarly, the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme was based on income from the year 2018-2019. This was a massive disadvantage for film and TV workers, whose intermittent employment meant that their income from one year alone wasn’t representative of their average situation.

    Head of Bectu Philippa Childs said:

    This is a workforce that has already faced incredible hardship throughout and following the pandemic, and has now been hit by a second crisis in just a few years. Many of our members have been laid off from productions under ā€˜force majeureā€™ clauses with little notice or pay, and with 6 in 10 respondents telling us they are struggling with their mental health, itā€™s clear the impact also extends beyond financial insecurity.

    As one survey respondent echoed these sentiments. They said:

    After being one of the forgotten many who fell through the cracks during the pandemic and received absolutely no financial support from the government, to now be in an even worse financial position is mind blowing and infuriating. Iā€™ve spent so long surviving instead of thriving, and Iā€™m tired.

    Solidarity with the US strike

    Despite the effects on her industry, Childs nevertheless offered solidarity to her striking US counterparts. She stated that:

    This is a fight with many of the same employers who frequently undervalue crew in the UK, and therefore our solidarity with US actors and writers is important for raising standards domestically and globally. However, there is no getting around the very real and devastating impact on UK workers.

    Instead, the union leader focused her ire where it belonged, highlighting the bosses’ abdication of their responsibility towards the workers, and the complete lack of government support for an industry it supposedly cherishes. She closed by saying:

    The government is vocal about the huge cultural and economic value of the creative industries; it must put its money where its mouth is and look after those who work in the sector. Likewise urgent industry collaboration and commitment from employers to support the freelance workforce is critical if we want to UK to remain a cultural hub.

    The film and TV industries across the world are international by their very nature. It’s little wonder that the strikes in America have had such a profound effect on the UK. However, given no recourse by an uncaring industry, British workers are now left hoping for a swift resolution to the Hollywood disputes – for everyone’s sake.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/NickErizo, licensed under theĀ Creative CommonsĀ Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, resized to 1910*1000.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Train drivers are striking again ā€“ and this time it coincides with the Tory party conference

    ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, has just announced two more days of train driver strikes. They will coincide with the start and end of this year’s Conservative Party conference – and the secretary for transport isn’t very happy about it.

    Strikes and overtime bans

    On 15 September, ASLEF announced that its members will hold two more days of strikes. On 30 September and 4 October, drivers at 16 train companies across England will refuse to work as part of a long-running dispute over pay.

    As theĀ Canary previously reported, train companies have refused to raise drivers’ wages for the past four years. Furthermore, ASLEF hasn’t had direct contact with train companies or the government regarding the dispute since 26 April and 6 January, respectively. This has led to 12 days of strikes since the dispute began 16 months ago.

    Mick Whelan, ASLEF general secretary, said in the press release announcing the September and October strikes that:

    We will talk to anyone. But, at the moment, they will not talk to us. And each likes to blame the other. They are happy, clearly, for industrial action to continue. And for passengers to suffer. We have come to agreements, and have no problems, in Scotland [with ScotRail] and in Wales [with Transport for Wales] where transport has been devolved. This is a dispute in England made at Westminster by the Tory government.

    In addition to the two strike days, ASLEF also announced two periods of overtime bans. These will stop drivers working more than their contracted hours. The two overtime bans run on 29 September and 2-6 October.

    The union says the strikes and overtime bans will “force the train operating companies to cancel all services” and “seriously disrupt the network”.

    ASLEF’s strike dates happen toĀ coincide with the Tory party conference. The event takes place this year between 1 and 4 October in Manchester.

    ‘Politically motivated’

    The new dates certainly seemed to ruffle transport secretary Mark Harper, who described the train driver strikes as “politically motivated” on Twitter:

    Then, in a tweet that apparently lacked any sense of irony, he used it as an opportunity to attack Labour:

    Meanwhile, the union took the opportunity to once again ask the secretary to “stop hiding” and meet with them:

    The money is there – but the motivation isn’t

    The government has recently wasted billions of pounds on the HS2 high-speed rail network. Now, it’s saying it can’t even complete the project. All of this was funded with public money – so it’s clear that funding is available if the government wants it to be.

    The big difference is that rail construction bulks up corporate profits, whereas resolving pay disputes harms those profits. The government’s motives couldn’t be more obvious.

    Featured image via Evening Standard/YouTube

    By Glen Black

  • HS2 legacy left in tatters as the government considers scrapping its northern leg

    The government is reportedly discussing scrapping phase two of HS2, which would connect Birmingham to Manchester. However, work already started on phase one of the rail line, which connects London to Birmingham. As a result, one of the country’s most expensive public projects will benefit the south and forego the north.

    Billions wasted

    TheĀ Independent revealed on 14 September that prime minister Rishi Sunak and chancellor Jeremy Hunt have discussed scrapping HS2’s second stage. Phase two would connect Birmingham to Manchester. The government has already spent Ā£2.3bn on pre-construction work for phase two. However, theĀ Independent reported that this money is now ” not recoverable even if it is cancelled”.

    Scrapping further work on HS2 phase two will save up to Ā£34bn, the government estimated. However, Royal Assent was given to part one of phase 2a – between Birmingham and Crewe – in February 2021. That will make it “hard to cancel it outright”, according to the Independent.

    HS2 is supposedly the largest infrastructure project in Europe. In 2010, the proposed costs for HS2 were between Ā£30.9bn and Ā£36bn. By 2019, an independent review estimated the project would cost Ā£106.4bn. Then, in October 2022, another estimate placed the final cost at more than Ā£150bn, accounting for inflation.

    Amid ballooning costs, the project has also faced setbacks and changes including scrapping the line to Leeds.

    Prising wide the North/South divide

    News that the government could scrap phase two led to outrage amongst political figures and the public in the North of England. Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, said the news showed the government saw northern passengers as “second-class citizens”, adding:

    The result? The southern half of England gets a modern rail system and the North left with Victorian infrastructure. Levelling up? My arse.

    Some people on social media echoed the sentiment that it reinforces problems of the traditional North/South divide:

    One person even provided an updated HS2 map showing what the line will look like if phase two is scrapped:

    Meanwhile, actor Robert Lindsay pointed out how HS2’s money could have been better spent:

    Ecological and social destruction

    HS2’s waste of public money and reinforcement of social divides has occurred against a backdrop of massive ecological and cultural destruction. A report by the Wildlife Trusts in January 2020 showed the line’s full route would destroy or severely harm:

    • 108 ancient woodlands
    • Five wildlife refuges of international importance
    • 33 Sites of Special Scientific Interest
    • 21 local nature reserves

    It would also do the same to hundreds of homes and listed buildings. In one case, an entire community was uprooted in South Yorkshire to facilitate the now-scrapped Leeds line

    As a result, some people welcomed the news that the government might scrap phase two of the rail line. Chris Green of Friends of the Earth told ITV News that:

    I think this is really, really brilliant news for all of the communities living to the north of the West Midlands… who are blighted every day and every night by the prospect of this particular scheme. We could be spending this money on really, really investing in our current rail network, making it fit for purpose, we could be investing in our bus network.

    A government watchdog branded HS2 as “unachievable” in July.

    Smash and grab

    HS2 represents the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it is ecologically and socially destructive; on the other, it’s failing to deliver on the meagre transport benefits it originally touted. At an estimated Ā£307m per mile of track, there are also huge question marks over the economic benefits it will bring to the country. On the other hand, its economic benefit to privateĀ profits isn’t in question.

    Once again, the Tories have presided over a project that funnels massive amounts of public money into private hands. This has happened multiple times in the last few months alone, such as with the redundant Bibby Stockholm and cover pay for striking doctors that could have resolved the strikes in the first place. All of this is money that could have gone towards actual problems such as crumbling schools and hospitals.

    There is a silver lining though: at least this time animals and the landscape might benefit from the government’s incompetence and malice.

    Featured image via djim/Flickr

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The BBC just shamed itself with its coverage of the Libya floods

    The harrowing floods in Libya have already killed thousands, with over 10,000 people still missing as of Friday 15 September. While the focus has rightly been on immediate support for the people affected, the BBC has also given its analysis of why the floods caused so much devastation. Typically, the British state broadcaster managed to shoehorn in UK colonialist propaganda – by completely downplaying Britain’s role in destroying the country in the previous decade.

    Libya floods: up to 20,000 people may be dead

    Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported on 15 September that, so far, flash flooding in east Libya caused by Storm Daniel has left nearly 4,000 people dead, 10,000 missing, and entire neighbourhoods in ruins.

    The storm tore through the coastal city of Derna, which has a population of around 100,000 people. Derna lies in a river valley 560 miles east of the capital, Tripoli. Storm Daniel caused two dams around Derna to burst, unleashing torrents of water that destroyed bridges and swept away entire neighbourhoods before spilling into the Mediterranean.

    Officials in the east of the divided country give different toll estimates, with one speaking of at least 3,840 dead. However, many fear the figure will be far higher – nearer to 20,000. Meanwhile, the UN humanitarian agency OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) stated that an estimated 884,000 people directly impacted by the storm and flash floods need assistance.

    Storm Daniel appears to be a result of the climate crisis. It grew in the Mediterranean because of the heatwave – where sea temperatures broke records. Climate science professor at the University of Bristol Lizzie Kendon told AFP that Storm Daniel was:

    illustrative of the type of devastating flooding event we may expect increasingly in the future

    However, the devastating impact of the storm on Libya can’t just be viewed through the lens of the climate crisis. That said, the lens the BBC viewed it through was completely biased towards the British state.

    The BBC: why is Libya such a mess?

    BBC News Africa tweeted on 13 September:

    The article started out with a generic description of Libya:

    Once one of Africa’s most prosperous countries, years of lawlessness have left it a fragile, divided state – ill-prepared to cope with the forces unleashed by a natural disaster.

    Then, it specifically stated that:

    The vast majority of deaths from the flooding have occurred in Derna – a city emblematic of Libya’s breakdown. It has received little investment for decades and a government minister in the area admitted that one of the dams that burst had not been maintained “for a while”.

    The BBC also pointed to the fact that Libya has two rival governments that have been in conflict for years. However, when it came to the ‘whys’ of Libya being a mess, the BBC couldn’t bring itself to say the reality out loud. It wrote that:

    Libya has been beset by chaos since forces backed by the West’s Nato military alliance overthrew long-serving ruler Col Muammar Gaddafi in October 2011.

    Of course, this framing is not quite the way the West’s invasion of Libya played out – as people on X pointed out:

    As the Canary reported in 2016:

    Libya is aĀ mess following the western military intervention that started in 2011. We were told it was necessary because there was an evil dictator who had to be taken out as he was massacring his own people…

    Muammar Gaddafi did have much blood on his hands ā€“ from the so-calledĀ Toyota WarĀ (or Chadian-Libyan conflict) to taking responsibility for theĀ LockerbieĀ bombing. Not to mention his handy role inĀ George W. Bushā€™sĀ extraordinary rendition program…

    When anti-Gaddafi protesters took to the streets of Libya in the midst of the ā€˜Arab Springā€™, the UK, US, and France declared Gaddafiā€™s rule illegitimate. The soon-to-follow NATO military intervention on behalf of Libyan rebel militants ended with the brutal execution of Gaddafi on the road out of Sirte ā€“ ironically, the very city which LibyanĀ DaeshĀ (Isis/Isil) fightersĀ have now made theirĀ de factoĀ headquarters.

    Propping up Western colonialist interests

    Of course, the reasons for the West getting involved weren’t ‘humanitarian’. It also knew the invasion would fuel groups like al-Qaida. As the Canary wrote, secret government communications that were leaked revealed:

    • “France wanted control over Gaddafiā€™s billions in gold and silver bullion”.
    • “The US and UK knew al-Qaida members were embedded in rebel groups, yet armed them anyway”.
    • “[Hillary] Clinton was informed there was no real humanitarian basis for NATOā€™s bombing, but NATO would continue its devastating bombing of Libya for another seven months anyway”.

    Back on X, someone noted the BBC‘s role in 2011:

    As a research paper into the BBC and Al Jazeera‘s coverage, specifically their framing, of the West’s invasion of Libya noted:

    the coverage of both these networks was aligned with the national and foreign policy interests of their home countries, making their political contexts the main influence on their news agendas. News frames across the sample reflected coverage that was largely supportive of the aims of opposition and the intervention.

    In other words, the BBC was not impartial in the situation. It was merely parroting what the British state, and other Western governments, were saying. None of this is new for the broadcaster. With its current reporting on Libya’s floods, the BBC is still maintaining that pro-Western colonialist stance to this day.

    Featured image via BBC News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • Tory minister no-showing the energy bills inquiry is more proof the government couldnā€™t care less about poor households this winter

    On 13 September, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee held an evidence session for its inquiry into preparations for winter. The committee grilled representatives of Ofgem (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) on actions the energy regulator was taking to ensure households would not face unaffordable energy bills this winter.

    Originally, the committee was also due to question the Department for Energy Security and Net Zeroā€™s (DESNZ) new lead minister, Claire Coutinho. However, Coutinho pulled out of the meeting.

    This had committee chair and SNP MP Angus Brendan MacNeil wondering why the minister had ditched the session. During the meeting, MacNeil said that:

    She was meant to be here today, but for various reasonsā€”perhaps a lack of confidence or not being on top of her brief or whateverā€”she is not. I am not sure, but we are very disappointed

    Less volatile market, but energy bills still sky-high

    It’s perhaps not surprising the energy minister ditched the session in light of the stark warnings from the government’s arms-length energy regulator. Chief executive of Ofgem Jonathan Brearley appeared before the committee and sketched out the dire situation for households this winter. Brearley opened with what he described as the ā€œpositive newsā€ – namely that:

    the market is more stable; it is less volatile, and prices are lower than they were this time last year.

    By comparison, he also said that:

    This time last year, we were anticipating and seeing prices at around Ā£4,200 a year without Government support.

    June saw a 25.2% drop in gas prices. The Office for National Statistics largely attributed this to Ofgem lowering the energy price cap that month. Ofgem has set the energy price cap at Ā£1,923 for the period between October and December. This is down on the Ā£2,074 between July and September.

    As fuel poverty non-profit National Energy Action (NEA) noted, however:

    This is still around Ā£700 more than in October 2021, when the energy crisis began when 4.5 million UK households were in fuel poverty.

    Energy bills to rise without action

    Moreover, Brearleyā€™s assessment quickly took a negative turn. Crucially, he warned that some households could actually face higher bills than last year. This is because the government has reduced financial support. Brearley stated that:

    That support is not available, so for many people, their bills will be very similar this year and possibly worse for some than they were last year.

    Specifically, the government has scrapped the Ā£400 winter discount on energy bills. In addition, it scaled back its Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) support scheme.

    Invariably, energy price hikes will hit the poorest households hardest. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition has estimated for example that:

    Fewer than 5m of the UKā€™s 28m households could be classed as being in the ā€œenergy eliteā€ and unaffected by the current energy bills crisis. Around 8m have to borrow money to pay their energy bills and over 1m have disconnected for periods this year.

    Moreover, rising energy bills have significant financial impact on chronically ill people, causing increasing debt risk. Fuel poverty also literally kills terminally ill patients faster.

    Plan to abandon the poorest households

    On the news Coutinho would not be attending, committee chair MacNeil also remarked how:

    it is disappointing that the Government can find nobody from the ESNZ department to answer our questions and demonstrate that they do have a plan to help the many facing up to an incredibly harsh time this winter.

    As the government withdrew its support for the EPG in April, it announced a new targeted cost of living payment to fill the gap. However, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) found that 1.7 million people in fuel poverty could miss out on the support.

    Of course, as the Canaryā€™s Steve Topple has pointed out before, the Tories do have a plan. Simply put, they plan not to help households out of fuel poverty. Topple argued that energy prices are the ā€œlatest weaponā€ in the Toriesā€™ class war, in that:

    the rich and powerful are knowingly doing things that will suppress the poorest people and keep them in their poverty-stricken place.

    Evading scrutiny

    Moreover, a previous inquiry session laid out clearly the devastating impact the Tories’ class war has had on marginalised communities. On 6 September, the committee met with non-profit groups. A number of organisations provided evidence of where the government had fallen short last winter.

    Notably, National Energy Action (NEA) estimated that the government had failed to reach over a million vulnerable households with vital financial aid. It said that this meant the government didn’t give out Ā£440m allocated towards energy support. Meanwhile, the End Poverty Coalition calculated that cold, damp homes killed nearly 5,000 more people in winter 2022/23 than the average.

    The committee also questioned Ofgem on the failures of the governmentā€™s warm homes discount scheme. Committee chair Angus Brendan MacNeil grilled Ofgem about a damning BBC revelation on the plans. The broadcaster found that it had failed to deliver support to over 700,000 people out of the 900,000 eligible.

    At this point, MacNeil cast some shade at Coutinho, noting that:

    We would ask the Secretary of State to answer that herself if she were here.

    Giving up the pretense entirely

    Given these failures of her department, is it any wonder the new energy minister evaded scrutiny? Regardless, the situation spoke volumes of the governmentā€™s concern for the most vulnerable this winter.

    In February, regarding the plans to cut the EPG, the Canaryā€™s Alex/Rose Cocker wrote that the govenment seems to be:

    giving up the pretense that it cares about people being able to afford necessities such as cooking and staying warm.

    Coutinho’s absence from the inquiry session brought this point home starker than ever. If the minister for Energy Security and Net Zero can’t even show up to an inquiry to discuss plans for energy bills, she sure as hell isn’t going to turn up for the poorest households when winter starts to bite.

    Feature image via Lisafern/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, image in the public domain.

    By Hannah Sharland

  • Peers wrecked the trophy hunting billā€™s chances by debating until time ran out

    On 12 September, the House of Lords met for the committee stage of the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill. Peers usually use this stageĀ to go through a proposed bill and iron out the details. However, for the trophy hunting imports ban, a small group of peers used it as an opportunity to filibuster the legislation.

    Time’s up

    Anti-trophy hunting campaigners were cautiously optimistic back in March when the importation ban cleared the House of Commons unopposed. However, leading up to the House of Lords’ committee stage, a small group of peers tabled more than 60 amendmentsĀ  to the legislation. Furthermore, the peers refused to ‘group’ the amendments, forcing the house to discuss each one individually.

    As a result, only five of the 62 amendments were discussed during the three-hour-long meeting on 12 September. This meant progress on the bill stalled. In order to succeed, it must receive Royal Assent by the end of the current parliamentary session on 7 November.

    ‘Trophy hunting is cruel and blood thirsty’

    Campaigners for the law were outraged, and described the peers’ tactics as filibustering. Sonul Badiani-Hamment, country director for Four Paws UK, said:

    The purposeful filibustering by a handful of backbencher Peers means that time is running out to discuss the Bill and their myriad of 64 tabled amendments. This is a wasteful course of action, wilfully taken to prevent the Bill from becoming law.

    Edith Kebesiime, wildlife campaign manager for World Animal Protection Africa, said:

    We are bitterly disappointed that the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill didnā€™t pass its committee stage. Trophy hunting is a cruel and blood thirsty practice that, benefits a small number of rich foreigners who plunder Africaā€™s wildlife for their own ā€˜entertainmentā€™ with no regard for our local communities.

    The UK government needs to listen to African voices – we donā€™t want our wildlife heritage plundered any further and want to see change. Continuing to make wild animals shoot-to-kill targets at the mercy of the wealthy is outdated in a world where public attitudes are swiftly shifting.

    With time having run out on the bill, it’s unlikely that the ban on trophy hunting imports will now become las. As Born Free’s head of policy Mark Jones explained, this is a result of the legislation coming through a private members’ bill rather than a governmental bill. The Canary previously reported on the problem of passing legislation through private members’ bills in relation to the Kept Animals Bill.

    Extra time

    However, it is possible the government will grant the trophy hunting importation bill extra time. Four Paws UK, the Humane Society International/UK, and other campaigners gathered outside parliament on 13 September to demand exactly that.

    MP Henry Smith, who tabled the trophy hunting imports ban, holds a sign saying "Stop Trophy Hunting Imports"

    Campaigners for a ban on trophy hunting imports gather outside parliament

    A press release by the campaign groups under the name Coalition Against Trophy & Canned Hunting (CATCH) said:

    The politicians and campaigners came together near Old Palace Yard in Westminster to implore the Government to find the necessary time to allow the Bill – a manifesto commitment – to complete its passage into law and protect the tragic victims of trophy hunting.

    Top Tory MPs are also asking for more time to get the bill into law:

    Uncertain future

    Those opposed to the trophy hunting bill claim it will harm animals rather than help them. This is based on the idea that decreasing the revenue stream to trophy hunting companies will reduce their ability to conserve the creatures.

    However, as the Canary has previously outlined, barely any money actually reaches local communities. One Tanzanian report revealed only 3% of trophy hunting revenue went to community development – the rest went towards tourism facilities, airlines, hunting operators, governments, and others involved in the trophy hunting industry.

    The future of the bill is currently uncertain, though its chances are now slimmer than ever. What is clear, however, is that the trophy hunting industry will fight long and hard – so long as there is still money in murdering animals.

    Featured image by Mikael Tham/Wikimedia Commons and additional images by Humane Society International/UK

    By Glen Black

  • The Tories have invited countries they admit are abusing human rights to a global arms fair

    The Tory-led UK government has revealed that it invited eight countries it considers to be human rights abusers to the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair at the ExCeL centre in London. Accordingly, people have been protesting – making their objections to these death dealers clear.

    DSEI: protests continue

    The Canary has been covering this year’s DSEI. As we previously reported:

    Itā€™s a huge arms fairĀ that hosts over 2,800 companiesĀ profiting from death, destruction, and surveillance. DSEI happens every two years ā€“ and so do the protests to it. Stop The Arms Fair (STAF) has been organising resistance. So far, itā€™s held a peace walk, a workshop on removing militarisation from education, and a ā€˜policing and prisonsā€™ day

    Then, on Monday 11 September, protests took place outside BAE Systems – one of the most notorious arms companies on the planet:

    There was also a poster campaign, spreading information:

    Activists then held a vigil to remember all the victims of war:

    On the fair’s opening day, Tuesday 12 September, protesters made sure that the arms dealers attending couldn’t miss the resistance to them and their industry:

    The Tories courting human rights abusers

    Meanwhile, also on 12 September, the Tory government published a list of countries it had invited to the arms fair. Unsurprisingly, eight states are on the UK government’s own list of ‘human rights priority’ countries:

    • Bangladesh
    • Colombia
    • Egypt
    • Iraq
    • Pakistan
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Turkmenistan
    • Uzbekistan

    So, as part of the protests against DSEI, people have been demonstrating outside the UK Defence and Security Exports office:

    Of course, the UK government’s definition of a human-rights-abusing state is itself entirely inadequate. Other notorious countries attending DSEI but who don’t make the government watch-list include:

    As the Canary previously reported, over 40 Israeli arms companies have stands at this year’s DSEI. Independent media outlet Declassified UK managed to get into DSEI. It found the Israel’s Ministry of Defense had its own stand:

    ‘Utter disdain for human rights’

    Campaign Against the Arms Trade’s (CAAT’s) media coordinator – and former Canary editor – Emily Apple said in a statement:

    The list of countries invited to this year’s DSEI shows this government’s utter disdain for human rights around the world. These invited delegates will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more weapons to wage wars across their borders and to repress their civilian populations at home. It makes a mockery of the Foreign Office publishing a list of human rights priority countries when the same government pulls out all the stops to sell them as many arms as possible.

    DSEI is a marketplace in death and destruction. It has nothing to do with peace and security, and only exists to maximise the profits of arms dealers.

    The UK government’s willingness to invite human rights-abusing states to DSEI raises huge questions about how we function as a country. So, with just a few days left of DSEI, protests are set to continue at the ExCeL centre and beyond.

    Feature image via CAAT

    By Steve Topple

  • The Trades Union Congress is reporting the Tories to the UN over new strike law

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has announced that it’s reporting the government to the United Nations workers’ rights watchdog over the “unworkable” new law on strikes.

    TUC: coming out swinging

    The Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act requires minimum levels of service during walkouts by various workers. These include healthcare staff, firefighters, and railway employees. The Tory government imposed the Strikes Act in late July following months of industrial action across the UK, amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

    In a 10 September press release, the TUC stated that it was lodging the case with the International Labour Organization (ILO) because the legislation “falls far short” of international legal standards. The TUC – an umbrella group of 48 unions comprising more than 5.5 million members – is currently holding its annual conference in Liverpool.

    A government spokesperson said:

    We believe there needs to be a reasonable balance between the ability of workers to strike with the rights of the public, who work hard and expect essential services they pay for to be there when they need them.

    However, TUC general secretary Paul Nowak came out swinging against this line of argument. On 11 September, he told the congress that:

    The right to strike is fundamental. Without the right to withdraw our labour, workers become disposable, replaceable and exploitable.

    This new law isn’t about preserving services for the public. It’s about telling us to get back in our place and to not demand better.

    Strikes Act: ‘a fundamental attack’

    The government also attempted to draw comparisons between the Strikes Act and similar laws in wider Europe. However, European Trade Union Confederation general secretary Esther LynchĀ said:

    The Strikes Act is a fundamental attack on the right to strike and will make the UK an international outlier on trade union rights and labour standards…

    Ā Let me by crystal clear. It is already harder for working people in the UK to take strike action than in any other Western European country.

    Ā Now your government wants to restrict the right to strike even further.

    In July, trade unions won a High Court battle with the government over law changes they said allowed agencies to supply employers with workers to plug gaps left by striking staff. Now, they seek to repeat that success on a larger scale, undermining the Strikes Act itself.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/John Wood, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under theĀ Creative CommonsĀ Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 InternationalĀ license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Parliamentary report finds photo voter ID requirement is systemically flawed

    A parliamentary review committee said the new voter ID system “disenfranchises more electors than it protects” on 11 September. The findings give credence to widespread concerns leading up to the system’s introduction, and reveal a latent attack on democracy.

    ‘Poisoned cure’

    The government first announced plans for photographic identification as a requirement to vote nationwide in May 2021. It justified the plans at the time as a means of combatting voter fraud, claiming that there were “frequent anecdotal reports” of one person claiming to be another in order to cast a vote.

    Campaigners, civil society groups and even Labour opposed the plans from the outset. They described them as a form of voter suppression. Nonetheless, the government ploughed ahead and the new system came into effect in January. However, despite the Tories’ claims of “frequent anecdotal reports”, it emerged in April that there hadn’t been a single proven case of in-person voter fraud.

    As a result, the photo ID system ‘solved’ a problem that didn’t exist. This is what the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution (APPGDC) described it in its report as a “poisoned cure”.

    Marginalising the marginalised

    The Electoral Commission previously said the change would have the greatest negative impact on certain already-marginalised sections of society. The APPGDC’s report all but confirmed these problems.

    It said that, since 2013, there have been eight convictions or cautions for voter impersonation. All of these were by postal votes, however, with none resulting from in-person voting.

    It also gave concrete disenfranchisement figures. It said the Electoral Commission recorded that 0.7% of voters were turned away due to lack of ID, and of those only 63% returned with ID to vote. 0.25% of those people didn’t return at all, equating to roughly 14,000 people. Meanwhile, independent observers recorded a much higher 1.2% of people turned away due to lack of ID.

    In both cases, the APPGDC believed the numbers “are likely a significant under-estimate”. This is due to the greeters at polling stations, who turned people away before they even entered the station but had no obligation to record doing so. The Good Law Project said in July that 99 councils used greeters during local elections in May, and only three of those kept records.

    Furthermore, the impact of the new voter ID system was far from evenly spread. The APPGDC’s report noted that:

    A disproportionate number of electors who were not permitted to vote appeared to be non-white passing.

    By contrast, all of those who were observed being permitted to vote without presenting ID were white-passing.

    It noted that in some cases where people presented photo ID such as a passport, they were still denied entry to vote. Those forms of ID tended to be from non-white majority countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    The report also highlighted the case of Andrea Barrett, who refused to remove her mask at the polling station in May because she is immunocompromised. She had both photo ID and a video of her face without a mask.

    Face matching

    One of the APPGDC’s inquiry panel members was Robert Buckland. The former justice secretary oversaw the introduction of the plan and campaigned for it publicly. He saidĀ on BBC Question Time in May 2021 that there would be “no issue at all” because the government would issue free voter IDs for those who requested them.

    However, the APPGDC’s report showed that just 89,500 people applied for such an ID, out of an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 that required one. Furthermore, only 25,000 people used these IDs to register their vote.

    Nonetheless, Buckland remains supportive of the changes. He told theĀ GuardianĀ that the government needs to address and remedy the issues, but that it “addresses a potential weakness in our voting system”.

    There is one huge problematic weakness in the new system, though: the high error rate of ‘face matching’. Evidence submitted to the APPGDC said that experiments have shown that matching an unfamiliar face to a photo failed 20% to 35% of the time. The APPGDC notedĀ that the error rate could be high amongst polling station officers because the ability varied greatly between individuals.

    Election impact

    The report said that, with figures averaged out, the new system denied:

    more than 14 000 people the right to vote for every one instance of personation prevented.

    This is clearly scandalous.

    The APPGDC said it doesn’t believe that the new voter ID system changed any results during local elections. However, extrapolating the figures out to a general election painted a different picture. The number of people turned away:

    could have changed the result in 16 constituencies in a general election, based on the 2019 results.

    The APPGDC ultimately concluded that the system “may be remedied”, and presented three recommendations for doing so. The first of these is to enable people to vote without ID by making a “statutory declaration” confirming their identity, thereby pretty much returning it to the pre-photo ID system.

    All of this to fix a problem that didn’t exist in the first place – making the new voter ID system less a ‘poisoned cure’ and more straight-out poison.

    Featured image via secretlondon123/Flickr

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As opposition to the DSEI arms fair intensifies, over 40 Israeli arms companies have set up shop

    The Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair is taking place at the ExCeL centre in London. Meanwhile, activists and campaigners have already been robustly protesting it – causing some major disruption along the way. However, one group has revealed the extent of the Israeli state’s death and destruction that’s being represented at DSEI. It includes over 40 arms companies from the country selling their weapons there.

    Stop the arms fair

    The Canary has been documenting this year’s resistance to DSEI. It’s a huge arms fair that hosts over 2,800 companies profiting from death, destruction, and surveillance. DSEI happens every two years – and so do the protests to it. Stop The Arms Fair (STAF) has been organising resistance. So far, it’s held a peace walk, a workshop on removing militarisation from education, and a ‘policing and prisons’ day – focusing on how these arms of the state intersect with DSEI:

    There was also a Faith Day on Thursday 7 September. This was where people from all denominations (or those with none) held vigils, but also blocked deliveries to DSEI. Cops arrested nine people – as they usually do. Then, Climate Day on Friday 8 September saw people lock-on to delivery lorries:

    The climax of the first week of protests was STAF’s Festival of Resistance on Saturday 9 September. It included music and guest speakers:

    A group of cyclists arrived in support:

    People once again blocked roads into the ExCeL centre to stop deliveries – while dancing, no less:

    There was a heavy police presence – but, curiously, they didn’t arrest anyone on 9 September:

    STAF have more actions happening, too – including a Migrant Justice Day:

    However, against this backdrop of protest, a campaign group has revealed just how well-represented Israeli arms companies are at DSEI.

    Israeli arms companies making a killing at DSEI

    Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) research shows that over 40 Israeli arms companies – including Elbit Systems – have stalls at DSEI. The Canary has documented Elbit’s toxic work. It includes ‘battle testing‘ equipment on Palestinians. As Tom Anderson previously wrote:

    Elbit manufacturesĀ around 85%Ā of Israelā€™s drones which have been used to massacre Palestinians in Gaza.

    For example ā€“ during Israelā€™s 51 day attack on Gaza in 2014 ā€“ Israeli dronesĀ killedĀ 840 Palestinians. Drones wereĀ alsoĀ usedĀ extensively in Israelā€™sĀ 11 dayĀ attack on Gaza in 2021.

    Elbitā€™s Ferranti factory in OldhamĀ manufacturedĀ imaging and surveillance systems for Israelā€™s Hermes drones, which have beenĀ usedĀ to kill Palestinians in Gaza. Elbit is alsoĀ responsibleĀ for manufacturing small calibre ammunition for the Israeli army.

    It’s not just in Palestine that Israeli arms manufacturers enable death and destruction. As Middle East Eye reported, government-owned Israel Aerospace Industries has been exporting arms to Myanmar. This is despite making promises to the contrary. The UN described the situation in Myanmar as “genocidal” in 2017, after 700,000 Rohingya were forced to flee to Bangladesh.

    Former Canary editor Emily Apple is CAAT’s media coordinator. She said in a statement:

    Israel is an apartheid state, and it is disgusting that the UK is not only selling weapons to Israel but encouraging Israeli arms companies to sell their weapons in London.

    Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastating peopleā€™s lives. Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security. They care about perpetuating conflict, because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    Whether it’s Elbit, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, once again DSEI – and the UK government – is complicit in the promotion of the arms industry. Meanwhile, it’s people in place like Palestine, Myanmar, and Yemen who suffer while the ExCeL centre sees millions traded off the back of their misery.

    Featured image via CAATĀ 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As opposition to the DSEI arms fair intensifies, over 40 Israeli arms companies have set up shop

    The Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair is taking place at the ExCeL centre in London. Meanwhile, activists and campaigners have already been robustly protesting it – causing some major disruption along the way. However, one group has revealed the extent of the Israeli state’s death and destruction that’s being represented at DSEI. It includes over 40 arms companies from the country selling their weapons there.

    Stop the arms fair

    The Canary has been documenting this year’s resistance to DSEI. It’s a huge arms fair that hosts over 2,800 companies profiting from death, destruction, and surveillance. DSEI happens every two years – and so do the protests to it. Stop The Arms Fair (STAF) has been organising resistance. So far, it’s held a peace walk, a workshop on removing militarisation from education, and a ‘policing and prisons’ day – focusing on how these arms of the state intersect with DSEI:

    There was also a Faith Day on Thursday 7 September. This was where people from all denominations (or those with none) held vigils, but also blocked deliveries to DSEI. Cops arrested nine people – as they usually do. Then, Climate Day on Friday 8 September saw people lock-on to delivery lorries:

    The climax of the first week of protests was STAF’s Festival of Resistance on Saturday 9 September. It included music and guest speakers:

    A group of cyclists arrived in support:

    People once again blocked roads into the ExCeL centre to stop deliveries – while dancing, no less:

    There was a heavy police presence – but, curiously, they didn’t arrest anyone on 9 September:

    STAF have more actions happening, too – including a Migrant Justice Day:

    However, against this backdrop of protest, a campaign group has revealed just how well-represented Israeli arms companies are at DSEI.

    Israeli arms companies making a killing at DSEI

    Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) research shows that over 40 Israeli arms companies – including Elbit Systems – have stalls at DSEI. The Canary has documented Elbit’s toxic work. It includes ‘battle testing‘ equipment on Palestinians. As Tom Anderson previously wrote:

    Elbit manufacturesĀ around 85%Ā of Israelā€™s drones which have been used to massacre Palestinians in Gaza.

    For example ā€“ during Israelā€™s 51 day attack on Gaza in 2014 ā€“ Israeli dronesĀ killedĀ 840 Palestinians. Drones wereĀ alsoĀ usedĀ extensively in Israelā€™sĀ 11 dayĀ attack on Gaza in 2021.

    Elbitā€™s Ferranti factory in OldhamĀ manufacturedĀ imaging and surveillance systems for Israelā€™s Hermes drones, which have beenĀ usedĀ to kill Palestinians in Gaza. Elbit is alsoĀ responsibleĀ for manufacturing small calibre ammunition for the Israeli army.

    It’s not just in Palestine that Israeli arms manufacturers enable death and destruction. As Middle East Eye reported, government-owned Israel Aerospace Industries has been exporting arms to Myanmar. This is despite making promises to the contrary. The UN described the situation in Myanmar as “genocidal” in 2017, after 700,000 Rohingya were forced to flee to Bangladesh.

    Former Canary editor Emily Apple is CAAT’s media coordinator. She said in a statement:

    Israel is an apartheid state, and it is disgusting that the UK is not only selling weapons to Israel but encouraging Israeli arms companies to sell their weapons in London.

    Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastating peopleā€™s lives. Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security. They care about perpetuating conflict, because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    Whether it’s Elbit, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, once again DSEI – and the UK government – is complicit in the promotion of the arms industry. Meanwhile, it’s people in place like Palestine, Myanmar, and Yemen who suffer while the ExCeL centre sees millions traded off the back of their misery.

    Featured image via CAATĀ 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Former PM Liz Truss has written an entire book about her 15 minutes in office

    Over the past 13 years we’ve had more Tory prime ministers than most of us have had real-terms pay increases. All but one of these PMs have resigned in disgrace (although we’re sure that number will be reduced to zero as soon as Rishi Sunak’s scandals reach critical mass). As bad as they all turned out, there’s one among them who stands tall as the most chaotic and embarrassing. That would be Liz Truss – the woman who lasted a mere 49 days before resigning in disgrace.

    Given the short and embarrassing nature of her time in office, you might assume two things:

    1. There couldn’t possibly be enough material for a book.
    2. Even if you could squeeze a book out of it, why would you want to remind everyone what you did?

    But no! Truss must have considered both of these points, and yet still came to the conclusion that these aren’t problems for her – because she’s written a whole book about her short time in office.

    Hard Times

    According to an interview she did, Truss is blaming a lack of “support for Conservative ideas”.

    Truss was the Conservative prime minister of a Conservative government in a country which had voted Conservative for four successive elections. How much more support did these Conservative ideas need?

    Let’s follow this through. In the interview, the Guardian paraphrased Truss saying:

    I agree that taxes are too high and the Government is too big

    If you’re not clear what she means by this, right-wingers like to say they believe in ‘small government’ – i.e., a government which doesn’t fund public services (unless of course we’re talking about the military, the police, the surveillance state, etc). Another key tenet of small government is that politicians can’t do anything about the economy. Instead, they seem to view it as this omnipotent thing which exists outside of our direct influence, and that all you can do is reduce taxes and pray it accepts our offering like some unswayable sea monster from Greek legend.

    So what actually happened with Truss’s government?

    If you remember, she did a load of big-C Conservative shit, and the economy flipped out. Can you see the contradiction?

    Truss didn’t have to resign because there wasn’t support for her ideas; she had to resign because there wasn’t support for the impact of her ideas – ideas which had the polar opposite effect to what was promised.

    Conservatism exposed

    The media, the Tories, and a boatload of dodgy thinktanks have been feeding us this right-wing nonsense for years. That’s how someone like Truss managed to rise to the rank of PM in the first place. The difference between her and other failed Tory PMs is that they understood that while you can slip a lot past the British public, you do at least have to pace yourself.

    Quite accidentally, Truss’s premiership ended up being the biggest refutation of right-wing British politics in decades. The people who backed her can’t let that stand, of course, so she has to go back out there and tell us that we were at fault for not believing in her nonsense hard enough.

    Given the obvious gall of this gaslighting exercise, people had a lot to say:

    Some suggested it would be a very short book:

     

    Truss: outlasted by a lettuce

    Many tweets referenced the fact that Truss was famously outlasted in office by a lettuce in a blonde wig:

    Journalists asked about the Daily Star‘s lettuce livestream in June 2023, and she responded:

    I donā€™t think it was particularly funny, I think itā€™s puerile

    While it was undoubtedly puerile, it was also inarguably hilarious.

    Ironically, Truss also said:

    I think the level of understanding of economic ideas in the media and the ability to explain them is very poor indeed

    While this statement is accurate, she’s not really the person to make it – given that her economic ideas literally crashed the economy. She’s also done a pretty poor job of explaining this post-crash, as I’ve visualised for you in this helpful meme:

    To be fair to Truss, she does belatedly seem to be giving a boost to one worker out there:

    Truss lives

    There’s an important point to note about Truss’s political philosophy – it hasn’t really gone away:

    Truss wasn’t a break from what the Tories had offered or what Keir Starmer is proposing – she was just a turbo-charged version of it. Really, all we learned from Truss was that if you try to do too much right-wing stuff at once, the wheels come off immediately.

    What we should have learned – what we’ve literally witnessed – is that sooner or later the wheels fall off the right side regardless. Instead of trying to build ourselves a sturdier vehicle, we’re asking ‘Who can keep this shitshow moving forwards the longest?’ – as if the country was some sort of JackassĀ stunt.

    Talking of Jackass, I don’t know if they have any plans to continue their cinematic output, but Truss’s new book would make one hell of a screenplay if they’re interested.

    Featured image via Number 10 – Flickr

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Labour use crumbling schools to promote austerity as Reynolds smirks like a demonā€™s possessed him

    We’re at a point now at which even the austerity-pushers in the media are looking at Britain’s crumbling infrastructure and saying ‘maybe we should spend the bare minimum on this stuff‘. Among the public there’s been a hunger for public spending for years; now we’re at a point at which you can voice that feeling without being dogpiled by the nation’s thickest columnists. And yet – and fucking yet – Labour are using this situation to promote – of all fucking things – more austerity – i.e. the thing which got us here in the first place – the thing which we know from history never works:

    Another crumbling concrete breeze block in the wall

    This is a very simple situation. We can’t send numerous children to school because there’s a chance these buildings will collapse like Liz Truss’s premiership. Anyone who isn’t a complete clown would say ‘well of course we’re going to un-deathtrap these schools – of course we’re not going to crush your children to death in defective concrete – of course we don’t exist solely to transfer wealth to the already wealthy‘. This is what Jonathan Reynolds – shadow secretary for business and trade – had to say:

    For those of you who can’t stand to watch these liars running their lying mouths, Trevor Phillips asked:

    Would you commit to building more new schools and repairing more schools than the current government has committed?

    Reynolds responded:

    Of course I want to be able to do that, of course I look to previous Labour governments that have been able to do things like that, but if we have an economy – whatever the recent revisions from the ONS about our performance since the pandemic – the fact is that this has been 13 years of poor economic performance and that limits the kind of policies and aspirations you’ve got. Until you’re fixing the economy it will be more difficult.

    A bemused Phillips responded:

    So you see what the problem is here, Mr Reynolds. You’re spending a lot of time telling us that the government’s wrong, but you can’t ever say you would do something different.

    And here we get to the crux of the problem.

    Austerity doesn’t work

    Outside the mainstream media bubble, people have been making three key points for over a decade:

    1. Austerity doesn’t work.
    2. Austerity has never worked.
    3. You can’t fix the problems created by austerity with more austerity.

    How do we know that austerity doesn’t work? Because we tried it – multiple times – and it didn’t work. Remember when you were a kid and you wondered if you could fly, so you concentrated really hard, but it just didn’t happen? It’s like that, except you presumably stopped trying to fly some time ago. With austerity, it’s like we know we can’t fly, but we keep finding larger things to jump off in our efforts to prove it works.

    Here’s a graph showing that although the Tories sold austerityĀ as the solution to the 2008 recession, it actually ended up being one of our slowest recoveries ever:

    Here’s a very informative passage from Raoul Martinez, writing for Novara MediaĀ in 2017:

    When the [2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat] Coalition came to power, neither history nor mainstream economic theory provided any support for the claim that cuts were the only way to reduce the deļ¬cit. Cutting spending in a recession has been tried many times and ā€“ without exception ā€“ failed. For instance, in the aftermath of the First World War, the US, Britain, Sweden, Germany, Japan and France all adopted austerity policies with devastating impacts on their economies. President Herbert Hooverā€™s austerity response to the 1929 economic crash was followed by the Great Depression.

    The historical failure of austerity as a response to economic crises resulted in a widespread consensus among academic economists that, since recessions are caused by a reduction in demand (and when there is no room to offset cuts by reducing interest rates), cutting spending only makes the situation worse. The textbook response to economic downturns, as any student of the subject knows, is to increase spending. By spending more in the short term, a government can reduce public debt faster because smart spending creates jobs, increases tax revenues and releases more people more quickly from dependency on the state.

    However, as governments began to embrace austerity, a handful of economists produced research telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.

    Demonically-smirking austerity mongers

    For context, this is what Reynolds looked like when he was introduced as the returning shadow secretary for business (following this week’s reshuffle). Imaging being this smug when your job is to tell an audience of millions that their kids can get fucked:

    It would be hyperbolic to suggest that actual demons have infested this man; it would also be naĆÆve, as Satan would at least have the sense not to smirk.

    How does a person turn into this? Maybe Reynolds has an awareness of all the freebies that Keir Starmer has accepted from wealthy interests – more than every Labour leader since 1997 combined according toĀ openDemocracy – and he knows he’s on the same gravy train? Maybe he just hates young people because of their flagrant hairlines?

    Even after looking at the decades of evidence we have on austerity not working, some people will still be squealing that tired refrain: ‘but there’s no money‘. As people have pointed out, however, there’s loads of money – it’s just concentrated in the hands of the few:

    There’s actually a lot more wealth in recent years it seems, as this harrowing headline and article from Oxfam highlights:

    Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall

    New billionaire minted every 26 hours, as inequality contributes to the death of one person every four seconds

    The worldā€™s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion ā€”at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a dayā€” during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty.

    ā€œIf these ten men were to lose 99.999 percent of their wealth tomorrow, they would still be richer than 99 percent of all the people on this planet,ā€ said Oxfam Internationalā€™s Executive Director Gabriela Bucher. ā€œThey now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.ā€

    We can’t have safe schools, but the richest among us can purchase a fourth swimming pool at the fifth house they bought for their third favourite dog.

    Feel like smirking yet?

    Featured image via Sky New – YouTube

    By John Shafthauer

  • Police watchdog just issued an ā€˜unprecedentedā€™ apology to the family of a man who died in custody

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has issued a letter of apology for the “distress, anxiety and upset” its investigations caused to the family of Sean Rigg, who was killed in police custody in 2008. However, the first anniversary of another police killing shows that the IOPC’s apology is hollow.

    Failure of accountability

    Sean died in custody at Brixton police station following an ordeal that saw five Metropolitan Police officers wrestling with him, putting him in a prone position for eight minutes, and laying him face-down in a police van. They also failed to call an ambulance after officers had to carry him to be placed, unresponsive, in a caged area. Sean was experiencing a schizophrenic mental health break at the time.

    The actions of officers on the day, along with their stories not adding up, led to an inquest. In 2012, an inquest jury deemed the officers’ restraint “unnecessary and unsuitable”. However, in December 2017 the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided against charges for the five officers involved.

    In April 2018, the IOPC then directed the Metropolitan Police to bring gross misconduct charges against the officers involved. A six-week hearing in early 2019 on these charges resulted in a police misconduct panel dismissing all of the charges.

    As a result, to date, nobody has faced penalties for Sean’s death.

    Secret payouts to officers

    The IOPC’s predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), issued an apology to Sean’s family in 2013. It came after an independent review criticised its actions. However, the latest apology is much wider-ranging.

    After the watchdog dropped its gross misconduct charges, three of the officers involved received compensation and apologies from the IOPC. However, these were issued privately. Marcia Rigg, Sean’s sister – who has led the campaign for justice over his death – only found out as a result of a Police Federation news article in May 2023. As a result, she said the news was “extremely upsetting” to hear.

    This led Tom Whiting, acting general of the IOPC, to write to Marcia on 21 August. In it, Whiting said he was “sorry” for not “informing [Marcia] of the claim at a much earlier stage”. He also reiterated the apology for delays in the initial investigation, and gave a fresh apology for delays in subsequent investigations. Whiting concluded with an ‘unreserved apology’.

    ‘Fundamentally flawed, institutionally racist, and a public scandal’

    INQUEST, an organisation which supports families of people killed in police custody, described Whiting’s letter as an “unprecedented unreserved apology”. Meanwhile, Marcia said Sean’s death continues to haunt her, and used Whiting’s letter as a chance to push for similar accountability across the board:

    Fifteen yearsĀ since my brother Sean Rigg died at Brixton police station on the evening of 21st August 2008, theĀ never-endingĀ trauma andĀ painfulĀ impact continuesĀ to haunt me,Ā through no fault of my ownĀ orĀ my family.Ā 

    In my view and that of many familiesĀ and the public generally, there continues to be zero confidence in the investigative and judicial process, no justice even with damming evidence and countless reviews, proving that the whole judicial system inĀ theĀ UK is fundamentally flawed; institutionally racist;Ā corrupt and a nationalĀ public scandal.

    On 15th May 2023, I became aware via a Police Federation news article that three officers involved in the restraint of my brother received compensation and an apology from the IOPC for the IPCCā€™s delays, which was almost 11 years by the time of the decision in March 2019. Ā It was extremely upsetting for me to read this, not least because the compensation was paid in secret.Ā 

    I appreciate these apologies and trust that the IOPC will now consider informing families and complainants of any similar compensation to officers by the IOPC as a matter of course, as a courtesy and in the wider public interest.

    Daniel Machover, Marcia’s solicitor, echoed the need for the IOPC to go further. He said the IOPC “needs to go beyond this unprecedented and very welcome apology” and call for an end to prolonged prone restraint. He also said that the IOPC’s refusal to properly investigate officers has fed into a culture of “absolute impunity”.

    Debra Coles, INQUEST director, said:

    Fifteen years on and with no one properly held to account, this case provides a stark reminder of how the mechanisms for holding police to account are not fit for purpose. All those involved, the IOPC, CPS, Police federation and the Met Police should be ashamed.

    Black men continue to die after police use of dangerous restraint and there remains a culture of impunity and failure to enact meaningful systemic change.Ā  Police forces and the IOPC must consistently hold officers to account for the use of prolonged prone restraint well known to carry serious risks. Anything else is a licence to seriously injure or kill.

    Chris Kaba

    To underscore this point, the publicaton of the IOPC’s apology comes just days after the first anniversary of the killing of Chris Kaba. Officers with the Metropolitan Police shot and killed Kaba in Streatham on 5 September 2022.

    A year later, Kaba’s family are still awaiting answers over the killing, including the matter of the disappearance of his watch. Moreover, in a situation reflecting that of Sean Rigg, the IOPC still hasn’t brought any legal action against the officers involved in Kaba’s killing. His family issued a statement via INQUEST saying:

    We believe that it was possible within six months of Chris being killed both for the IOPC to complete a well-resourced and effective criminal investigationĀ andĀ for the CPS to provide us with a charging decision.

    Ā It is almost unbelievable that a year on we still wait for answers. It is agonising not knowing the CPS decision.

    Ā It is unacceptable that we have been failed by the CPS, which has not completed its task urgently or in a timely fashion.

    The family has asked the public to join them on a march from New Scotland Yard tomorrow, 9 September, at midday.

    Just one conviction

    Sean and Chris’s deaths are, sadly, far from a unique incident. According to INQUEST, 1870 people across England and Wales have died in police custody or following contact with officers since 1990. A majority of these deaths occurred in custody, although shootings, pursuits, and road traffic incidents are also represented. A disproportionately high number of these are people of Black, Asian and Minoritised Ethnicities (BAME).

    There’s been only one prosecution of an officer over a death in police custody since 1990. Benjamin Monk was found guilty in June 2021 of killing former football star Dalian Atkinson. However, Monk was convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

    Despite Whiting’s apology to Marcia Rigg, Kaba’s case shows that the IOPC hasn’t learned a thing. Police violence – particularly against Black people – continues across the country thanks to the ‘absolute impunity’ officers experience. Until that changes, the IOPC’s apologies ring hollow.

    Featured image via 4WardEverUK/Flickr

    By Glen Black

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cops are already arresting activists at the DSEI arms fair ā€“ and itā€™s barely even started yet

    As Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) sets up at the ExCeL centre in London, activists have begun resisting it. Not far behind them are the cops – with nine arrests already, even before this notorious arms fair begins properly.

    DSEI arms fair: dealing in death

    The Canary has been documenting the build-up to this year’s DSEI, an arms fair which happens every two years – as do the protests against it. As former Canary editor Emily Apple previously wrote:

    supported by the UK government, and organised by Clarion Events ā€“ DSEI is aĀ massive event for arms dealers. One of its primary functions is to allow arms companies to network with representatives from some of the worldā€™s most repressive regimes. Companies will encourage delegates from human-rights-abusing nationsĀ such asĀ Bahrain,Ā Qatar,Ā Turkey, andĀ Saudi ArabiaĀ to buy the latest weapons to suppress their own populations and/or to wage war against others.

    There is no pretense. DSEI exists to connect buyers and sellers. It exists to make deals that will devastate peopleā€™s lives.

    So, as DSEI began to set up on Tuesday 5 September, activists started resisting it. For example, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) held a “vigil”. It was over arms manufacturers and governments selling weapons to the apartheid state of Israel – which it then uses to kill Palestinians:

    PSC said in a statement that the vigil and its attendees:

    condemned the presence of Israeli military officials and Israeli arms companies, which develop and use weapons in violence against Palestinians, before selling them as ā€˜battle-testedā€™ to other states. This year alone, Israel has killed over 200 Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territory, including in military invasions, bombing campaigns, and assassinations.

    Vigil attendees joined calls for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has previously stated his opposition to the fair, to act to bring a halt to the event. Protesters also turned their fire on the British government, which helps organise the event through the Ministry of Defence and UK Defence and Security Exports, part of the Department for International Trade.

    Then, on Wednesday 6 September, people held a “peace walk” – plus a workshop on removing militarisation from education also went on:

    However, while all these events passed off without incident, that wasn’t the case on Thursday 7 September.

    Faith Day is met with cops

    It was Faith Day outside DSEI – where people of all denominations (and none) come together to call for peace, and denounce militarisation (and the arms fair).

    People congregated on the road leading into the ExCeL to sing and stop vehicles entering it:

    Historically, Faith Day has been a flashpoint at DSEI protests. In 2019, cops arrested over 30 Quakers. Apple previously reported:

    Quakers were sitting in silence ā€“ a key part of their act of worship ā€“ when police officers began moving through the crowd to warn people they could be arrested if they didnā€™t move.

    Head of worship & witness for Quakers in Britain Oliver RobertsonĀ spokeĀ to an inspector about the decision to move the police in while this was taking place. He expressed his ā€œdisappointmentā€ in the policeā€™s actions and that:

    “itā€™s a spiritual endeavour. Itā€™s the same as in the middle of a church service”.

    The inspector apologised and said they:

    “will take that as a learning point”.

    Clearly, cops haven’t learned – as they arrested nine people during Faith Day this year:

    ‘Stop the deals before they take place’

    Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) told the Canary:

    On Thursday, people of all faiths and none put their bodies in the way of this trade in death and destruction. The religious services held at the gates were powerful testaments to people’s commitment to the principles of their faith and the need to act against this deadly trade.

    Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastating peopleā€™s lives. Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security. They care about perpetuating conflict, because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    War starts with the deals done at the ExCeL centre. Campaigners are showing that we have the power to stop those deals before they take place.

    All this is before DSEI has actually even begun. On Saturday 9 September, Stop The Arms Fair has organised its Festival of Resistance – an event which has in the past seen widespread disproportionate policing. So, in the coming days expect more heavy-handedness from cops, amid more protests from people committed to stopping DSEI.

    Featured image via CAAT

    By Steve Topple

  • Corbynā€™s appearance at a counter-conference looks set to ā€˜antagoniseā€™ Keir Starmer. Boo-hoo.

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll and the founder of think tank Compass, Neal Lawson, are appearing at this year’s The World Transformed (TWT) festival. So, with these speakers and more, plus the chance to (as TWT put it) “antagonise” the Labour leadership and Keir Starmer – what’s not to like?

    TWT: ‘antagonising’ Starmer with Corbyn?

    As the Canary previously reported, this year’s TWT festival will take place from 7-10 October in Liverpool. The yearly programme of culture and politics continues to run alongside the Labour conference. However, it has come to contrast starkly with the partyā€™s policy platform. Moreover, conference season could be a tricky time for Starmer – because heā€™s likely to find himself confronted by those heā€™s betrayed.

    The Labour leader has U-turned on almost all of the ā€˜ten pledgesā€™. These formed the basis of his campaign to succeed Jeremy Corbyn. Plus, along with expelling him from the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), he’s also:

    • blocked Driscoll from standing for re-election.
    • gave notice to Lawson in June that he may face expulsion from the Labour Party – after 44 years of membership. This is because in May 2021 he retweeted support for tactical voting in some local elections.

    So, TWT said in a press release:

    As Keir Starmer reshuffles his cabinet to reflect the most dramatic metamorphosis of any political party in recent memory, three of the figures who have found themselves persona non grata in Starmerā€™s Labour Party are all set to appear at a festival promising to be the ā€˜most newsworthy yetā€™.

    Corbyn, Driscoll, and Lawson’s attendance is, the group said:

    set to risk further antagonising the Labour leadership by appearing at The World Transformed (or TWT), a political festival which has taken place at the same time as the Labour Party conference since 2016, but has adopted a more adversarial attitude towards the Labour leadership as Sir Keir Starmer has purged left wingers from the Party and junked a series of progressive policies.

    A big lineup of speakers and events

    Overall, there’ll be enough establishment antagonism to fill a centrist think tank. Other guests include cop-defying Just Stop Oil:

    Everyone’s favourite corporate hack-scalping trade union leader Mick Lynch will also be in attendance:

    And there are even some brave Labour MPs on the lineup. Will suspensions be incoming afterwards?

    Plus, there are going to be dozens of workshops – including “General Election 2024: no one is coming to save us”, “Starmer in government”, and “Lessons from France”:

    TWT line up

    As TWT says on its website:

    You are the real opposition. So letā€™s face these crises together, stay connected, get organised – and letā€™s have a good time while we do it.

    Tickets are on sale here. So, if you want to see the world transformed – join TWT in Liverpool, in October.

    Featured image via TWT, Channel 4 News – YouTube, and Sky News – YouTubeĀ 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A tree ā€˜massacreā€™ in Essex reveals the rot at the root of one of our leading conservation charities

    In part one of this three-part series, the Canary explored Taylor Wimpey’s plan to tear down over 40 protected trees. Crucially, the article identified Wimpey’s ecological consultant – Middlemarch – pushing to undermine the trees’ protected designation. In part two, we listed exactly why Taylor Wimpey cannot be trusted to work in nature’s interests.

    For part three, the Canary found that the latest environment-wrecking whims of the housing developer have thrown up something notable – how leading conservation charity the Wildlife Trust is entangled with both Middlemarch and Taylor Wimpey itself.

    Ecological consultant owned by the Wildlife Trusts

    First up, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust (WKWT) – one of 46 federated members of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (RSWT) – is Middlemarch’s ultimate owner.

    If it seems a bit off-base for a consultancy to be owned by a leading conservation charity, itā€™s actually not. In fact, the Wildlife Trusts umbrella organisation actually operates the ‘Biodiversity Benchmark’ that Middlemarch developed in collaboration with multiple notable environment-wrecking corporations. The Wildlife Trusts boasted that it:

    is the only standard that certifies management of your business landholdings for wildlife.

    Moreover, the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts host a list of other big-name business partners. These include, for example: Aviva, Siemens, M&S, and (surprise, surprise) Severn Trent. The RSWT opined on how itā€™s proud to work with businesses, which can:

    play a valued role in addressing the climate and nature crises across the UK

    However, these sponsorships and partnerships could also provide environment-wrecking companies a convenient greenwashing screen to clean up their public image. The trusts’ working relationship with Taylor Wimpey is a case in point – showing that these connections might be a little too close for environmental and climate comfort.

    Agreement with Wimpey

    In the RSWTā€™s 2015 to 2016 annual accounts, the non-profit umbrella announced it had signed an agreement with Taylor Wimpey to:

    to facilitate relationships between their local teams and local Wildlife Trusts to secure gains for wildlife around their new developments, from the planning process to community engagement.

    So why exactly would the Wildlife Trusts sign an agreement to work with a notable environmental vandal? In short: to minimise the damage. Like other leading UK conservation groups, it labours under the idea that organisations have to work with ecologically harmful companies.

    This is a misguided position which will bite conservation non-profits – and as a result, nature itself – in the arse. For example, working with housing developers like Taylor Wimpey to make miniscule wildlife-friendly adjustments to their projects has not stopped them lobbying the government to water down vital environmental regulations.

    Wildlife Trusts weigh in

    The CanaryĀ reached out to the Wildlife Trusts for comment. First, we asked if they recognised that their endorsement of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) principles – as used by Taylor Wimpey to justify chopping down over 40 protected trees – could open the door to environmental degradation by big polluters.

    In response, a representative from Warwickshire Wildlife Trust (WKWT) stated that they believe:

    there should be no conflict between development and achieving natureā€™s recovery. We work with developers who want to build and deliver to the highest sustainable standards in a way that protects and enhances nature. We provide advice on how this can be achieved. We support Biodiversity Net Gain as a mechanism for ensuring that development can demonstrably leave nature in a better state than it found it.

    The Trust also argued against the suggestion that its ownership of Middlemarch Environmental was a conflict of interest. It stated that:

    Middlemarch operates independently and its purpose is to ensure development activities are undertaken lawfully and protect and enhance our natural environment. Being a part of this conversation with organisations is key in ensuring the environment is protected. Middlemarch also adheres to strict ethical and environmental standards and assists Warwickshire Wildlife Trust in bringing wildlife back to the area and helping people to take positive action for nature.

    Regarding its relationship to big businesses, the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust spokesperson said that:

    Our view is that in order to tackle the climate and nature emergency we need to reach every stakeholder within society. Corporates and businesses are a key stakeholder with huge potential to make positive change, as well as being a conduit to millions of individuals who need to take action for nature and wildlife.

    More specifically, the Trust representative argued that its corporate partnerships allow them to:

    work to ensure compliance with legislation, promote best practice and also encourage corporates and business to go further than they are obliged to, with the aim of advancing conservation and environmental efforts.

    Collaborating in environmental destruction

    Guardian columnist George Monbiot has previously laid into leading conservation organisations for posturing to the profiteering whims of powerful businesses. Specifically, he named and shamed the RSPB, the Woodland Trust, and two local Wildlife Trusts. These groups collaborated on a rebranding exercise for a housing mega-project between Oxford and Cambridge.

    Monbiot detailed how the non-profits had created promotional material for the governmentā€™s Oxford-Cambridge Arc. The project offers developers a house-building bonanza for the construction of over 2m new properties.

    This is the crux of the matter: like the Wildlife Trusts, these national nature groups pander to the powers-that-be to instate minute mitigations. Yet in reality, they are collaborators in ecological destruction. When all is said and done, the proximity of the UKā€™s most prominent protectors of nature to the very businesses carrying out its destruction is a scandal.

    The latest government backpedalling on EU river protections should be a firm warning. Conservation charities need to wake up, wise up, then rise up against the corporate harm they have enabled for too long.

    Feature image via Albert Bridge/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Developer Taylor Wimpey is destroying protected trees ā€“ but itā€™s no stranger to ecocide

    In part one of this three-part series, the CanaryĀ explored how ecological consultant Middlemarch aided Taylor Wimpey in its application for a housing development in Southend-on-Sea. In particular, the firm helped the developer secure planning permission to destroy over 40 protected trees. The Canary now turns its attention to Taylor Wimpey itself – a company which is no stranger to environmental destruction.

    There’s no shortage of reports on Taylor Wimpey ransacking green spaces and wildlife sites. For example, in Norfolk the firm cut down trees and hedgerows outside its planning permits. Similarly, in Hertfordshire, Wimpey damaged protected trees during early construction works.

    Whatā€™s more, Greenpeaceā€™s investigative unit, Unearthed, previously exposed the companyā€™s anti-environmental lobbying. It found that the corporation had pushed the government in 2021 to weaken climate targets for new builds.

    Naturally, the developer has also racked up a record of environmental safety violations. In 2021, the Environment Agency fined the company for unpermitted sewage discharge. Following this, in May 2023, the Welsh environment regulator fined Wimpey nearly half a million pounds for a serious river pollution incident.

    Net gain for nature?

    Where housing is concerned, the Wildlife Trusts have produced a briefing that sets out principles for developers to build:

    homes in a way that avoids and minimises biodiversity loss and damage.

    Crucially, the document advises developers to mitigate biodiversity loss where it is otherwise ā€œunavoidableā€.

    For Southend-on-Sea, as local resident and campaigner Tim Fransen sardonically noted, this means ā€œa cheap ā€˜wildlife areaā€™ā€ including:

    ā€˜man-madeā€™ beehives, excavated ground holes (hibernacula), and stacks of logs with holes drilled in them (bug hotels) – presumably fashioned from the very trees slated for destruction

    Moreover, Taylor Wimpey is proposing that the site in Shoeburyness will facilitate a net gain for biodiversity. As the Canaryā€™s Tracy Keeling has previously explained, biodiversity net gain (BNG):

    is the governmentā€™s controversial metric to facilitate continued development in nature-rich areas during the extinction crisis. It enables developers to secure a green light to destroy existing wildlife habitat. They can do so as long as their plans include promises to replace that biodiversity elsewhere and, in many cases, increase it overall.

    In other words, this misleading metric will allow Taylor Wimpey to tear down mature protected trees, so long as it offsets the damage and increases biodiversity on the whole. At the site, Wimpey will cut down over 60 trees across the local greenspace. To address the biodiversity loss, it proposes to plant 105 new trees, mostly in private gardens.

    Opening the door to nature degradation

    This might sound like a win for nature, but in reality, the developer will replace well-established trees with tiny saplings in plastic tree-guards. As residents have pointed out, the new spruces will also take decades to reach maturity. Worse still, mortality rates for newly planted trees in urban areas are notoriously high. The most recent survey of street tree mortality suggested that:

    30% of newly-planted street trees die within the first years of plantingā€¦ with rates often reaching as high as 50%

    Whatā€™s more, the dying, neglected trees at a separate Wimpey development in Wales should serve as a cautionary tale. In short, profit-driven housing developers simply cannot be trusted with nature. At the end of the day, they’ll readily sanction its destruction if it boosts the bottom line.

    In part three, the Canary will talk about how, just as the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is bound up in Middlemarch, the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts umbrella organisation is worryingly close to Taylor Wimpey itself.

    Feature image via sludgegulper/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Hannah Sharland

  • An ecological consultant has helped Taylor Wimpey sign off over 40 protected trees for the chop

    As housing developers watch their stocks rise due to plans to scrap river pollution rules, one community in Southend-on-Sea are finding out first hand how these profiteering companies run roughshod over nature. Moreover, the behaviour of major housing developer Taylor Wimpey’s ecological consultant has raised serious questions about the tight relationship between environmental experts and those destroying the natural world.

    On a beloved patch of local greenspace in Shoeburyness, Southend-on-Sea, over 40 protected trees line a grassy embankment. Locals have described how, on snowy days in winter, children will go sledding down the bank. In the summer, theyā€™ll play beneath the ā€œdappled and shadyā€ canopy, awash with wildflowers.

    However, they won’t be around for much longer. In July, the local council granted mega-developer Taylor Wimpey planning permission to level the bank, and the trees along with it. In their place, Wimpey will build a block of flats as part of a new housing development.

    This is part one in a three-part series on Taylor Wimpey’s housing project in Southend-on-Sea. This section will explore the actors involved in the destruction of a valued community green space. Part two will delve into Taylor Wimpey’s chequered environmental record. Then, in part three, the Canary will look into the connection between Wimpey and a leading UK conservation charity.

    Independent consultants?

    41 protected mature hawthorn and maple trees have become the focal point of a determined campaign against the developer. Taylor Wimpey will also tear down three further protected trees, alongside an additional 18 trees without protections.

    When Wimpey first announced its plans for the site, residents launched efforts to secure protection for the trees and green space. Locals applied for Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) for the embankment boughs. TPOs would afford the trees extra consideration in the decision over the development, though notably their preservation would still not be a given.

    In July 2022, the council confirmed the TPO. Of course, Taylor Wimpey disputed the designation. Its ecological consultant – Coventry-based Middlemarch Environmental – argued that one set of trees were in fact, a hedgerow. As a hedgerow, these trees would not qualify for a TPO.

    However, the councilā€™s arboricultural officer begged to differ. It refuted the ecological consultantā€™s assessment, concluding that:

    This line of trees has individual structure and they meet or exceed the size requirements which would be covered by conservation area protection

    In spite of the TPO, Middlemarch categorised the trees on the embankment as a hedgerow in its final impact assessment.

    Given these actions, itā€™s not surprising that local residents have called into question the integrity of Wimpeyā€™s ‘independent’ consultants. Tim Fransen has spearheaded the campaign against the development. He suggested to the Canary that the advice from the ecological consultant has been ā€œbiased and flawedā€.

    Greenlighting environmental destruction

    Middlemarch consultancy claims to provide “innovative solutions” that:

    help businesses to deliver high quality outcomes that protect nature and enhance biodiversity

    Naturally then, it boasts a list of morally dubious and environmentally destructive clientele. For instance, it has provided services to prolific workersā€™ rights violator Balfour Beatty. Meanwhile, the firm formerly provided ā€œecological solutionsā€ to disgraced and collapsed government outsourcing corporation Carillion.

    Better yet, Middlemarch has – without a seeming shred of self-awareness – emblazoned its landing page with water company Severn Trentā€™s logo. It promotes the environmental offender under the bombastic slogan ā€œstanding up for natureā€. It might almost be funny if the ecocidal corporation wasnā€™t pumping literal shit tonnes of raw sewage into UK waterways and laying waste to fragile river ecosystems.

    Moreover, in 2004, Middlemarch developed a ‘Biodiversity Benchmark’ alongside an auspicious list of climate and environment-wrecking companies. These included Severn Trent, Heathrow, and British Airways. The benchmarkā€™s webpage proclaims that:

    Landowning businesses can be a positive force for natureā€™s recovery and we want to recognise and celebrate those businesses which have achieved excellence.

    So landowning companies like Heathrow can plan environmentally ruinous runways and remain on the list of ā€œbusinesses which have achieved excellenceā€ for wildlife. Seems legit.

    Incidentally, Middlemarch is also a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). Purporting to be a global sustainability membership body for businesses, the Canary previously dubbed the company:

    a glorified public relations firm, badged with not-for-profit status and peddling in corporate greenwashing.

    Middlemarch appears to have taken a leaf from IEMAā€™s greenwashing playbook.

    Partnering in corporate ecocide

    None of this is even to mention that the consultancy has form for assisting housing developers circumvent those pesky regulatory barriers. When another local authority rejected major housing developer Danescroftā€™s plan to build 180 houses, Middlemarch swooped in to save the bottom line.

    It boasted about its success in a case study blog:

    When developers appealed against a refused development near Eastbourne, East Sussex, Middlemarch helped them demonstrate that three internationally-important habitats would be unaffected by the proposal.

    Only, government advisor Natural England took issue with Middlemarchā€™s assessment, concluding that:

    we cannot agree with the approach taken to the Shadow Habitats Assessment, nor the conclusions reached therein

    In particular, it pointed out a number of significant flaws in the consultantā€™s screening of the impacts on nearby protected sites. Disagreeing with and ignoring the findings of government environmental experts: sound familiar?

    The firm appears to make a habit of aiding and abetting and environmentally destructive companies in ransacking nature for their profiteering business activities – the beloved green space and protected trees in Shoeburyness are simply the latest victim.

    In part two, the Canary will dig into housing developer Taylor Wimpey’s record of ecological harm.Ā 

    Feature image via Stephen Burton/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK conservationists must stop spreading deceptive trophy hunting narratives

    The debate over trophy hunting has been raging in the UK again. As Sian Sullivan previously wrote for the Canary, pro-trophy hunting lobbyists turned their sights on the House of Lords when it was debating a ban on hunting imports. Afterwards, Sullivan faced a backlash from some pro-hunting conservation groups. However, this was unsurprising given the interests at play, and the tactics pro-trophy hunting groups are known to use.

    Trophy hunting’s large-scale PR ops

    In short, the trophy hunting industry conducts large-scale public relations campaigns to defeat proposed regulations like the UKā€™s Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill. The industry has sometimes used misleading and false narratives that a small-but-vocal contingent of UK conservationists spread in opinion articles and interviews.

    For example, UK conservationists critical of theĀ Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) BillĀ claim there is no evidence bans help wildlife. This claim is false. Researchers in Zambia published a paper that showed immense biological benefits for lions in the years following a ban.

    An issue with the evaluation of trophy hunting is separating negative biological consequences from positive economic benefits. Pro-trophy hunting conservationists accuse anti-hunting groups of understating the economic benefits to African communities. However, as Mongabay reported on the subject:

    • Namibia is often cited as a case study to make arguments for trophy hunting, a morally contentious practice that has been adapted into a conservation strategy there by various stakeholders including community-based conservancies.

    • But a 2016 study of the total revenue generated by trophy hunting revealed that 92% went to ā€˜freeholdā€™ landowners, over 70% of whom are white, while less than 8% went to communal conservancies.

    The majority of any benefits trickle up – not down. A leaked audit report from the Tcheku Community Trust revealed that the 627 households in communities near the Okavango Delta hardly benefitted from trophy hunting. Most benefits went directly into the pockets of the hunting operator, co-owned by one of Botswanaā€™s wealthiest men and a few local elites.

    The hunting operator only paid the trust $98,700 of the $179,500 it owed for hunting access to Botswanaā€™s NG13 region in 2022. About a third of the payment went to trust employeesā€™ exorbitant salaries. Jobs intended for the communities went to trust board members.

    Misleading narratives

    The UKā€™s pro-trophy hunting conservationists also spread the narrative that African communities want trophy hunting, and that it’s Western animal rights groups who want to ban it. This narrative is also misleading.

    For example, researchers in Namibia published a paper about a survey that showed community members supported the industry and opposed bans. However, the researchers had potential conflicts of interest that were reflected in the biases of their survey. For example, a research paper form 2018 tried to assert that:

    not one of the respondents raised any ethical concerns about hunting for sports by wealthy individuals who mostly come from a much wealthier background in the West.

    However, a later paper listing problems with the earlier study stated that:

    The example survey provided in the paper, however, suggests that this particular issue was not included in the questions asked.

    Meanwhile, researchers in Botswana published a paper that showed local communities approved of trophy hunting. However, the research was conducted by American hunting group Safari Club International Foundationā€™s (SCIF’s) partners at the Okavango Research Institute.

    Opposition in Africa

    The lead researcher was part of a team that requested SCIF funding in 2019 for a project called Assessing the Impacts of Safari Hunting and Implications of a Hunting Ban in Botswana, Namibia, and the greater Kavango- Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. It sought to:

    provide support for the importance of safari hunting for wildlife management and rural communities in Botswana and Namibia.

    There is a long history of African communities opposing colonial practices like trophy hunting. Hidden away in the industryā€™s 1996 Strategic Plan for Africa is a series of admissions about African communitiesā€™ negative views about trophy hunting. The document noted that an anti-hunting movement was ā€œnear crisis situation in Botswanaā€. It also said there was:

    strong evidence to indicate that high level people within DWNP [Department of Wildlife and National Parks] are anti-hunting and wish to phase trophy hunting out over 20 years.

    Industry representatives were concerned that the chief of Nagamiland, ā€œwho oversees one of the major hunting areas in Botswana, the Okavango Delta,ā€ was ā€œanti-hunting.ā€

    The strategic plan also stated that the:

    anti-hunting movement in Tanzania is mainly a grass-roots movement. Because people see no benefits from hunting or wildlife, they see hunters as people who are shooting out the game with no benefits to them. The Parliamentarian from Maasailand has openly stated that he will request that all hunting in his jurisdiction be closed. The message is out that ā€œtrophy hunting is destructive.

    Lobbyists’ disinformation

    Furthermore, pro-hunting lobbyists have also introduced potential disinformation into the trophy hunting debate.

    American groups conducted a $2m disinformation campaign that intentionally deceived social media users to shape ā€œa positive global narrative around hunting and sustainable useā€, according to a 2019 SCIF grant request I obtained. The campaign published content criticising the UKā€™s desire to ban hunting trophies imports.

    The American-led SCIF disinformation campaign attacked and helped overturn Botswanaā€™s hunting ban – specifically, a 2014 ban centered on elephants. The industryā€™s disinformation agents said they reached millions of Botswana citizens and:

    deployed a dual track communications strategy to educate Botswanans, NGO, hunting and grassroots communities with a top down bottom up narrative designed to educate the elites and decision makers, while simultaneously reinforcing that education with an organic grassroots echo.

    And, as I previously wrote on Wild Things Initiative:

    It is not surprising Botswanaā€™s President, Mokgweetsi Masisi,Ā liftedĀ the elephant hunting moratorium in May 2019 and was subsequentlyĀ invited to acceptĀ theĀ International Legislator of the Year AwardĀ at the 2020 Safari Club International Convention in Reno, Nevada.

    Overall, the UK contingent of pro-trophy hunting conservationists must stop spreading deceptive narratives. They risk cementing conservation as a tool for the wealthy to exploit wild animals and impoverished communities.

    Featured image via Benh LIEU SONG – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Jared Kukura

  • Latest US Military Package to Ukraine Includes Radioactive Weapons

    The Biden administration is expected to send armor-piercing munitions containing depleted uranium to Ukraine as part of the latest military aid package, even though the weapons are radioactive and their use causes contamination that is hazardous to human health. It’s the latest escalation in the war between Ukraine and Russia that nonproliferation activists warn could possibly lead to a nuclear…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest ā€“ Truthout.

  • Over 100 UK schools close buildings due to fears of crumbling aerated concrete

    As many as 104 schools and colleges containing an aerated concrete prone to collapse have been ordered not to reopen buildings this coming term. The Tory government stated on 3 September that it will “do what it takes” to ensure pupils’ safety. However, Rishi Sunak is now denying that he cut funding to relevant repair programs back when he was finance minister.

    Reinforced Autoclaved Concrete

    The building material in question is Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC). It’s known for being cheap and lightweight, and was widely used in parts of building construction across Britain between the 1950s and 1990s. However, the concerns around RAAC’s risk of collapse came to a head in 2018. That year, the roof of a primary school in Kent collapsed without warning.

    More than 50 other education sites have already been forced to put “mitigations in place” this year due to the presence of RAAC. Structural experts have warned it is likely to be found within many other sites as well. These include hospitals, courts, and some public housing. All may also have to close for remedial works.

    Finance minister Jeremy Hunt told Sky News thatĀ officials had initiated a “huge survey” of every single school in the country to identify where RAAC is in place. To make matters worse, the Sunday Times reported that experts have warned asbestos could be exposed in the schools affected by the crumbling concrete. This would result in many being shut for months.

    ‘Sat on their arse’

    Education officials, public sector unions, and the opposition hit out at the government’s handling of the issue. In particular, they highlighted the short notice given to schools ahead of the new term.

    England’s children’s commissioner Rachel De Souza told the BBC:

    I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that there was not a plan in place for this happening,” .

    There should have been planning in place and a really good school building programme that has addressed this over the years.”

    Meanwhile, education secretary Gillian Keegan apologised for saying she had “done a fucking good job” tackling the problem. She also claimed that “everyone else has sat on their arse and done nothing”. The comments were caught on camera after a television interview on the subject. She said the remarks were “off the cuff” and her language was “choice” and “unnecessary”.

    Forewarned is forearmed…

    It also transpired that officials weren’t unaware of this looming child safety scandal. The Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures UK organisation has repeatedly warned in reports that RAAC planks are present in many types of UK buildings. It also noted that the “useful life” of such planks has been estimated to be around 30 years.

    On 4 September, Rishi Sunak rejected allegations that he cut a school refurbishment program despite knowing about the risks of the concrete used in their construction. A top former top official at the ministry made the claim that he shelved a request for funding to rebuild more schools when he was finance minister.

    Senior civil servant at the DfE Jonathan Slater said up to 400 schools a year needed to be replaced by the department. However, it only got funding for 100. Sunak told BBC radio that back in 2021, money was only made available for 50. He also insisted that Slater was “completely and utterly wrong”. According to the prime minister, the number was in line with policy over the previous decade.

    The PM also attempted to play down the extent of the problem of RAAC use. He claimed that 95% of the total of about 22,000 English schools were unaffected by the issue. However, this of course means that hundreds more schools could be affected.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Marco Bernardini, licensed under theĀ Creative CommonsĀ Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, resized to 1910*1000.Ā 

    By The Canary

  • Striking workers ā€˜shut downā€™ Brighton University as ā€˜abhorrentā€™ bosses fail to move on redundancies

    As promised, workers at the University of Brighton have continued their campaign against redundancies into the new academic year. Members of the University and College Union (UCU) and their supporters “shut down” campus – and won’t be returning to work any time soon.

    Brighton University and its ‘abhorrent’ bosses

    As theĀ CanaryĀ has been documenting, bosses at Brighton University are making over 100 staff redundant. A PhD researcher at Brighton University,Ā Kathryn Zacharek, has been writing from the frontline of the dispute for us. Sheā€™s laid out how the institution is now a mess, with bosses are closing parts of it while spending massive amounts of money elsewhere.

    As Zacharek noted, among the 80 voluntary and 20-odd forced redundancies are lecturers Dr Tom Bunyard and Dr Cathy Bergin. They have expertise in philosophy, critical theory, and cultural histories of anti-racism and anti-colonialism, respectively. Zacharek wrote:

    After years of hard work and dedication to their students, how senior management is treating them is simply abhorrent. It is also the height of hypocrisy that an institution which prides itself on its equality, diversity and inclusion policies wants to sack an anti-racism scholar.

    Of course, bosses are blaming ‘rising costs’, blah, blah, blah. So, Brighton UCU and the campaigns UoB Solidarity and PGRā€™s Brighton have vowed to keep up the fight against the bosses’ toxic actions. Brighton University UCU members began an indefinite strike against the proposed redundancies on Monday 3 July. They said in a statement that unless management drop the compulsory redundancies:

    no preparation for the new academic year will take place and the autumn term will not start.

    Now, with no movement from bosses, Brighton UCU has held good to its word – and begun disrupting the new academic year.

    Shut it down

    As Brighton and Hove News reported, over the summer academics from the university warned students off from enrolling there. Brighton UCU secretary Ryan Burns said:

    In previous years during clearing, I would tell prospective students about how great their course would be and how much they would enjoy studying at Brighton.

    But with our university management forcing through over 100 redundancies this year, many staff feel they cannot currently in good conscience encourage people to study here.

    Then, the group staged a picket on Monday 4 September which it claims to have “shut down” Brighton University:

    Online, people posted in support of the workers:

    At Brighton, other groups joined Brighton UCU on the picket line:

    The national UCU also lent its support to striking Brighton University workers:

     

    The bus drivers also refused to cross Brighton UCU’s picket line on 4 September:

    However, people noted the absence of support from Brighton Students’ Union:

    Brighton bosses remain tight lipped

    So far, bosses at Brighton University have kept their heads down – with some even deleting their X (formerly Twitter) accounts. Publicly, they’re presenting a message of ‘all is well’ – even telling Brighton and Hove News that the redundancies have been:

    carefully planned to avoid an impact on our students and our academic standards have in no way been affected by the changes.

    This is blatantly not the case – and no amount of spin will mask the fact that Brighton University bosses and their disastrous mismanagement has caused this dispute. Brighton UCU won’t be backing down. So, expect further disruption as the academic year progresses.

    Featured image via Brighton UCU

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cops are already targeting activists wanting to ā€˜stop the arms fairā€™ at DSEI

    Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) is one of the worldā€™s largest arms fairs. It’s taking place at the ExCeL Centre in London between 12 and 15 September. The biannual event is always met with resistance from campaign groups and activists, who are then equally met by heavy-handed treatment by the cops. Already, it looks like this year will be no different – as police targeted activists before anything had even begun.

    DSEI: stop the arms fair

    As the Canary previously reported, DSEI takes place every two years. Thousands of arms dealers and defence and security suppliers gather at the ExCeL centre to court repressive regimes:

    This year, over 2,800 defence and security suppliers will be courting deals. However, every time DSEI takes place, activists also descend on the ExCeL centre and its locality to protest it. Stop the Arms Fair (STAF) organises the resistance ā€“ and theĀ CanaryĀ has repeatedly reported on this bi-annual horror show.

    This year, protests began on 5 September and will run for two weeks:

    The group Campaign Against The Arms Trade (CAAT) has already made camp outside the ExCeL Centre:

    During the first week, activists will target the setting up of the arms fair. However, police are already disrupting protesters’ right to go about their business.

    Cops already targeting activists

    For example, as campaign group the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) wrote on X (formerly Twitter):

    Police refused to allow the delivery of portable toilets to the protest camp saying itā€™s private property – even though campaigners have permission for them and it’s really none of the police’s business. The usual petty restrictions on the right to demonstrate, in other words

    Moreover, cops have already been following CAAT activists – even before they reached the ExCeL centre:

    Campaigners have suffered from excessive and violent policing at previous DSEIs. This has included cops using blanket stop-and-search powers, making arrests, disproportionate surveillance, harassment, and deploying spycops. Previous DSEI protests have also shown the institutional and systemic racism that is rife in the police. Protests by marginalised communities faced excessive police violence and harassment.

    Former Canary editor Emily Apple, in her capacity as CAAT’s media coordinator, told us:

    Time and again at DSEI weā€™ve seen the police protect the arms dealers, and repress our right to protest against this abhorrent fair. DSEI is a marketplace in death and destruction with deals done at the ExCeL centre causing global misery and devastating peopleā€™s lives.

    Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms.

    Arms dealers do not care about peace or security because conflict increases profits for their shareholders. Meanwhile this government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the money made from dodgy deals with dictators than it does about the people whose lives will be ruined by the sales made at DSEI.

    Yet despite the violence perpetrated inside the ExCeL centre, the police view protesters as the problem, not arms dealers. But this year weā€™re also sending the police a message. You will be watched and you will be held accountable for repressive policing.

    Cat and mouse policing

    Netpol will be central to the monitoring of police at the arms fair. It’s already made it clear it wants to hear from any activists targeted by cops:

    The group’s campaigns coordinator Kevin Blowe told the Canary :

    There is often a huge gulf between police promises to “respect human rights” at protests and campaigners’ experiences of aggressive policing, racial profiling, intrusive police surveillance and mistreatment at the hands of officers.

    This year’s opposition to the DSEi arms fair, however, is taking place in the aftermath of a growing state intolerance towards protesters and increasingly restrictive anti-protest legislation. Not all the new powers given to the police are in place yet, but the Home Secretary has decided that the definition of “serious disruption” means anything causing more than a minor hindrance, and Netpol believes this is more likely to lead to arrests in the week before the arms fair begins, when in previous years the ExCeL centre has been blockaded by demonstrators.

    It is already easier for the police to impose strict conditions on a demonstrations, but we do not yet know if the Metropolitan Police will become the first to make arrests for the new criminal offences of locking-on and going equipped to lock-on. These offences target the methods by which disruption might potentially take place, rather than focusing on the actual degree of disruption a protest could lead to.

    Netpol believe new police powers exist primarily to further criminalise the right to dissent and to intimidate people into not joining protest movements that the police recognise are likely to grow. That is why we are monitoring the impact of policing on the right to freedom of assembly during DSEI and are urging campaigners to tell us about their experiences.

    Bear in mind that this was on the first day when cops followed activists, and blocked the entry of their toilets. With STAF organising numerous events, including a ā€˜Festival of Resistanceā€™ on Saturday 9 September, the police response is likely to be more disproportionate than ever. Saturday’s event has historically seen the most repressive policing. Not that this will deter activists – it never did in previous years.

    Featured image via CAAT

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Bravermanā€™s new review is blatantly trying to manipulate the narrative around police prejudice

    On 2 September, home secretary Suella Braverman commissioned a review into “activism and impartiality in the police”. However, if you were at all worried that this means the government will take the culture of far-right extremism in the police seriously, you can rest easy.

    Hell, she’s not even talking about issues like homophobia and racism in the force. Quite the opposite, in fact. Braverman specifically listedĀ critical race theory, gender identity politics, and even climate activism as areas where the police need to appear more impartial. Of course, she also put scare quotes around “gender identity”.

    Anyone remember Casey?

    Not that anybody needs reminding, but the Casey Review of the Met came out in March 2023. It followed the abduction, rape, and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer. Casey found the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. She also stated, unambiguously, that:

    The Met can now no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police them.

    But what has Braverman, in her infinite wisdom, decided is the problem with our police? Not the cultures of “blindness, arrogance and prejudice” cited by Casey, no. Rather, the home secretary clearly thinks the police are losing public faith because some of them take the knee or use trans people’s pronouns.

    In her letter to HMCI Andy Cooke, Braverman stated her expectation that the police should focus on crime, rather than involving themselves in political matters. So, she commissioned His Majestyā€™s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to review police involvement in such activities, and how this affects the legitimacy of policing in England and Wales.

    Maintaining ‘neutrality’

    In particular, Braverman pointed to cases where she felt like public confidence had been damaged by police engaging in contentious issues. Specifically, she mentioned policing “gender critical” views on social media, and participation in social campaigns.

    The HMICFRS review will cover:

    • Policies and processes that go beyond Equality Act 2010 obligations.
    • The neutrality of training on such policies and processes, and the organisations delivering it.
    • The selection and expressions of groups consulted on revisions to policy, and “what “consideration is given to other groups that may be impacted as a result”.
    • The involvement of staff networks in policy development, and these networks’ involvement in “contested political matters”.
    • The communication of these issues with the public.

    The home secretary expects the report by March 2024. Coincidentally, this is exactly one year after the Casey report was published. I’m not sure exactly what Braverman is expecting to happen here – there hasn’t been some great reversal in police prejudice over the last twelve months. We can’t be expected to believe that, actually, police are now too friendly towards black and queer causes, surely.

    Braverman: virtue signalling

    However, that’s not Braverman’s motivation here either, is it? For all that her letter hand-wrings about accusations of virtue-signaling in the police, she’s doing some signaling of her own. She wrote:

    The British people expect their police to focus on cutting crime and protecting communities ā€“ political activism does not keep people safe, solve crimes or support victims, but can damage public confidence.

    The review Iā€™ve commissioned will explore whether the police getting involved in politically contentious matters is having a detrimental impact on policing.

    There is a very specific facet of the public whose confidence in the police is damaged when an officer dances at a Pride parade or kneels as a symbolic gesture against racism (ignoring, for a moment, the people who are annoyed at police making these gestures because they’re two-faced snakes in the grass). It is the same facet who are not opposed to racism and who are angered by those Pride parades.

    Braverman is signaling, and quite unsubtly at that, to these members of the public that she is on their side. As ever, the cries for neutrality aren’t neutral – they’re for the side of the status quo; that is, prejudice.

    A world of her own

    Beyond this, Braverman’s letter points to a larger problem with our government. It will commission endless reports and reviews in a vain attempt to prove that the world acts precisely as the Tories want it to. When the reports come back stating that the public have lost confidence in the police because of their racism and misogyny, well, the government knows just what to do. We’ll have another report, asking ‘Are the police too woke?’

    This is a transparent attempt to manipulate the narrative around police failures. For a year, we’ll have breathless mainstream media reports on cops getting too friendly towards activists – and never mind the beatings. We’ll hear that, in order to maintain neutrality, the police must break away from organisations like Stonewall, and root out Black Lives Matter sympathisers. The cynic in me wants to say that it might even work.

    However, even I’m not sure that could happen this time. Braverman is living in a world of her own if she thinks that we’ll just roll over and forget the prejudice and fascism in the force. She might persuade her supporters and client journalists, but there are too many people beyond them who have had enough this time. They will not be silenced so easily.

    Featured image via screengrab/Guardian

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Steve Barclay just got his ass handed to him over the BMA junior doctor and consultant strikes

    Health secretary Steve Barclay probably wished he hadn’t turned his social media on on Sunday 3 September. An ill-conceived post on X (formerly Twitter) ended up with people labelling him “useless“, an “odious piece of shite“, and a “robotic penguin” (or possibly a “minless plastic automaton”, hard to tell). This was all over the NHS junior doctors’ and consultants’ strikes, organised by the British Medical Association (BMA).

    The BMA: everybody out

    As the Canary previously reported, the BMA recently announced that junior doctors and consultants in England will go on strike together. It will be the first time in the history of the NHS this has happened:

    Junior doctors have already staged several days of strike action in recent months, and will walk out again in September. TheĀ BMAĀ stated that theyā€™ll strike on September 20-22, with one day coinciding with a strike by consultants. Then, junior doctors and consultants will also strike at the same time on October 2-4.

    Consultants also walked out in both July and August. It’s of little wonder these medical professionals are striking. For example:

    So, the BMA is calling for pay restoration for junior doctors, in line with inflation since 2008/09. For consultants, it says it wants a:

    credible offer that puts an end to these pay cuts and a commits to reforming the pay review body process so that it can be truly independent in reviewing consultant pay and begin addressing these historic losses.

    Intransigence, lies, and bad social media

    Of course, the Tory government is unwilling to do any of these things. It’s offered both junior doctors and consultants a 6% pay rise, plus a one-off payment of Ā£1,250 for the former. Moreover, Tory ministers have shown intransigence, at best – and at worst, have lied. Barclay was guilty of the latter on the subject of consultants’ pensions.

    Now, the health secretary has commented for right-wing shitrag the Express – whining about the BMA “playing politics” and labelling the strike action as “callous”. Clearly, Barclay (or some wet-behind-the-ears comms intern) thought that sharing the article on social media would provide some much-needed positive PR for the health secretary and the government. Talk about a miscalculation:

    Barclay’s post provoked a near-unanimously furious backlash from people on X. One doctor thought the health secretary was the one playing politics by stalling on negotiating with the BMA:

    That was one of the more polite posts. Other people had some choice words for Barclay – noting his “shite brand of gaslighting”, among other characteristics:

    Another doctor thought the health secretary had the air of a “robotic penguin” about him – in reference to Barclay’s recent encounter with one:

    Overall, and one consultant summed the situation up nicely:

    Barclay: running out of options

    Of course, posting shit on social media and talking to the Express are the only weapons Barclay has left in his armoury. The splurge guns from Bugsy Malone would be more effective – and ditto for a bunch of kids in costumes when it comes to dealing with the NHS, compared to our health secretary.

    Barclay’s desperation is obvious – as is his very-thinly veiled propaganda, trying to turn the public against NHS workers. However, the health secretary is running out of options. With a union that clearly won’t back down, and public support for junior doctors still in the majority (but admittedly with consultants lagging behind), Barclay is on the edge – as his desperate social media posting shows.

    Featured image via Good Morning Britain – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

  • Workers and employers are ā€˜crying out for certaintyā€™ over how AI should be used in the workplace

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has launched an artificial intelligence (AI) taskforce to address the threat of new technology to workers in the UK. It will bring together leading specialists in law, technology, politics, HR, and the voluntary sector. The taskforce’s chief mission will be to fill the current gaps in UK employment law. It will draft new legal protections to ensure AI is regulated fairly at work for the benefit of employees and employers.

    The TUC aims to publish an expert-drafted ‘AI and Employment Bill’ early in 2024. It will then lobby the government to incorporate it into UK law.

    TUC: wide-ranging coalition on AI

    The work of the taskforce will be led by the TUC and assisted by a special advisory committee. Members of that committee will include:

    In addition, David Davis MP, Darren Jones MP, Mick Whitley MP, and Chris Stephens MP will also sit on the committee.

    The Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy will provide the secretariat for the taskforce, and the committee will be jointly chaired by:

    • Kate Bell – TUC assistant general secretary.
    • Gina Neff – executive director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy at the University of Cambridge.

    The ā€˜AI and Employment Billā€™ will be drafted by leading employment lawyers Robin Allen KC and Dee Masters from the AI Law Consultancy.

    Tories: ‘way behind the curve’

    The taskforce is being launched as experts warn that the UK is ā€œway behind the curveā€ on the regulation of AI. UK employment law has failed to keep pace with the development of new technologies. Employers are also uncertain of how to fairly take advantage of new technologies.

    The taskforce says AI is already making ā€œhigh-risk, life changingā€ decisions about workersā€™ lives. These include line-managing, and hiring and firing staff. For example, AI is being used to analyse facial expressions, tone of voice, and accents to assess candidatesā€™ suitability for roles.

    Left unchecked, this could lead to greater discrimination, unfairness, and exploitation at work across the economy. Meanwhile employers are purchasing and using systems without full knowledge of the implications, such as whether they reinforce biases.

    UK at risk of being an ‘International outlier’

    The TUC says the UK risks becoming an ā€œinternational outlierā€ on the regulation of AI. The EU and other countries have already drafted specific legislation to properly regulate AI at work. However, at present the UKā€™s governmentā€™s stated position is a ā€˜light touchā€™ approach.

    Experts say ministers have yet to put in place the necessary ā€œguardrailsā€ to protect workersā€™ rights. Moreover, Marchā€™s AI White Paper proposed only a principles-based approach that lacks statutory force.

    TUC assistant general secretary Kate Bell said:

    We urgently need new employment legislation, so workers and employers know where they stand.Ā Without proper regulation of AI, our labour market risks turning into a wild west. We all have a shared interest in getting this right.

    AI summit

    This autumn, prime minister Rishi Sunak will host a global summit on AI. However, the taskforce says it is vital that workersā€™ groups and the wider voluntary sector are invited to attend alongside business groups and employers.

    Executive director of the Minderoo Centre Gina Neff said:

    Responsible and trustworthy AI can power huge benefits. But laws must be fit for purpose and ensure that AI works for all.

    AI safety isnā€™t just a challenge for the future and it isnā€™t just a technical problem. These are issues that both employers and workers are facing now, and they need the help from researchers, policy makers and civil society to build the capacity to get this right for society.

    So, the TUC is calling on the Tories to enshrine a number of protections into law. These include:

    • A legal duty for employers to consult trade unions on the use of ‘high risk’ and intrusive forms of AI in the workplace.
    • A legal right for all workers to have a human review of decisions made by AI systems so they can challenge decisions that are unfair and discriminatory.
    • A set of amendments to the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Equality Act to guard against discriminatory algorithms.

    Featured image via mikemacmarketing – Wikimedia, resized to 1910×1000 under licence CC BY 2.0

    By The Canary

  • Laura Kuenssberg gave Piers Morgan the phone hacking interview of his dreams

    This week’s episode of Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg proved even harder to stomach than usual – namely because Piers Morgan was introduced to the menu. While this horrible hotpot was always going to be vomit-inducing, it didn’t have to be quite so foul. However, for some unknown reason Kuenssberg gave Morgan the opportunity to whitewash one of his greatest ever scandals.

    Do you people ever do any research?

    Morgan is famous for many things, but the most notable three are probably:

    1. Getting angry at sausage rolls.
    2. Storming off a television set because a co-host hurt his feelings.
    3. Resigning in disgrace from a British tabloid newspaper and then somehow continuing to work in the allegedly ‘respectful’ field of UK journalism.

    While the scandal which led to his resignation wasn’t centred on phone hacking, it later came to light that Morgan had indeed been involved in the rancid practice.

    For those who can’t watch the above video (either because you’re at work or you can’t stand to watch this sack of gone-off ham talk), Morgan was asked:

    you listened to a tape of a voicemail message, is that correct?

    Morgan responded:

    I listened to a tape of a message, yes.

    Given that this was something he said in court, we can legally consider this to be true – i.e., we don’t have to say this ‘allegedly’ happened. It did happen. Morgan listened to a tape of a “message”, and from context we know this message was a voicemail.

    ‘I want to move on’…

    As such, it’s confusing as to why Kuenssberg felt the need to ask:

    I do want to ask you if you have ever listened to a voicemail without the consent of one of the participants.

    For a split second it looked like Morgan is holding back a smirk. He then said “no”, before laying out his “position on hacking” – a position which doesn’t actually give any clarity on whether he listened to voicemails without consent (which we know he did). After allowing him to waffle on and completely strawman the discussion, Kuenssberg unleashed her infamous catchphrase:

    I want to move on.

    Here’s how this should have gone. Firstly, Kuenssberg should have said something along the lines of ‘you listened to people’s voicemails without consent, and we know you did because you admitted it in court, you fucking rat’. Then she should have said, ‘I don’t know what’s come over me – I seem to have accidentally said something correct and worthwhile’. Then both she and Morgan should have hoisted themselves into the nearest bin to await disposal.

    The British Backlash Corporation

    People weren’t happy with Morgan getting airtime (especially as he enjoys airtime of his own at Rupert Murdoch’s pleasure):

    One person thought Morgan was unhappy with the question. I’d argue he was actually very happy with the opportunity Kuenssberg gifted him not to answer it:

    After all, the BBC didn’t just allow him to get away with not answering – they also promoted his non-answer:

    Alleged journalism

    Some might say the disgraced Morgan being allowed on the BBC is a national embarrassment. Others might argue the BBC is – if anything – equally as repellant as him. There’s one thing we can all agree on, though – namely that these ‘journalists’ should be cooked in a giant sausage roll and launched into space.

    Featured image via BBC Politics – screengrab

    By John Shafthauer

    This post was originally published on Canary.